BV
4625.6
.02

The Catholic University

Studies

in

of

America

Sacred Theology

(Second Series)
No. 109

The Remission of Venial Sin
A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Sacred Theology of The
Catholic University of America in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Sacred Theology

John Joseph O’Brien, A.B., S.T.L.

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS
WASHINGTON, D.C.
■·· 1959 ·
<"

This dissertation was conducted under the direction of

Very Reverend Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., S.T.D., as
major professor, and was approved by Reverend Alfred

C. Rush, C.SS.R., S.T.D., and Reverend Romaeus W.
O’Brien, O.Carm., J.C.D., as readers.

The Catholic University

Studies

in

of

America

Sacred Theology

(Second Series)
No. 109

The Remission of Venial Sin
A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Sacred Theology of The
Catholic University of America in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Sacred Theology
by
John Joseph O’Brien, A.B., S.T.L.

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS
WASHINGTON, D.C.
19S9

Sy
Nihil Obstat:

Fkanciscus J. Connell, C.SS.R., S.T.D.
Censor Deputatus

Imprimatur:
© Ricakdus J. Cushing, D.D.
Archiepiscopus Bostoniensis

Date: May 21, 1958

COPYRIGHT 1959
THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS, INC.

FOREWORD

Perhaps the most far reaching act which man can perform by
his own power is the act of sin. Through this action man can sever
his union with almighty God by expelling from his soul the gift
of sanctifying grace which was won for him in the Redemption
and through which he was made an adopted son of God and given
the beginning of everlasting glory. Such an act is of great impor­
tance in the field of theology. The mystery involved in the re­
jection of God, and the means which can be employed to effect
the reunion of the sinner to God, are subjects which have rightly
interested theologians through the years. However, such a terrible
act on the part of the Christian is to be looked on as the exception
rather than the normal happening. Mortal sin should never enter
the life of the follower of Christ. In the everyday life of the Chris­
tian there is found another type of sin which is of such frequent
occurence that in the early church it was known as daily sin. This
type of sin is now known as venial sin.
The effects of venial sin are of a different kind than those of
mortal sin, and the terrible choice between God and a created
good as the final end of man does not enter into venial sin at all.
Thus venial sin is far less harmful to man and is much more easily
remitted. It is for this very reason, however, that its nature and
its remission become more complicated than that of mortal sin
when a theoretical explanation is attempted. Far less has been
written on the remission of venial sin than on the remission of
mortal sin. This is to be expected as mortal sin is the more awe­
inspiring in its mystery and terrible in its results. There is a cer­
tain immediacy and danger involved in the matter of mortal sin
and its remission which does not exist, and which should never
be transferred, when the matter of venial sin and its remission is
considered.
v

vi

Venial sin, despite its frequency and its practical ease of remis­
sion, is still sin. As such it is a far worse evil than the combination
of all physical evils and calamines. It is in the hope of clarifying
the concept of venial sin and the manner of its remission that this
work has been written. Venial sin must be seen as it is, a great
evil and yet infinitely less of an evil than mortal sin. Perhaps
the true evil of venial sin is not appreciated because the enormity
of the evil involved in mortal sin is not appreciated. At no time
in the consideration of venial sin, or in its comparison to mortal
sin, is the impression intended that venial sin is a negligible mat­
ter. It is a constant threat in the life of every Christian, and for
this reason the means by which it can be remitted are of impor­
tance to every Christian.

It is a pleasure to express my sincere gratitude to His Excel­
lency, the Most Reverend Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of
Boston, for the opportunity of graduate studies and for his con­
stant kindness; and to offer my thanks to Very Reverend Francis
J. Connell, C.SS.R., and to all of the Faculty of the School of
Sacred Theology, the Catholic University of America, for their
generous and valuable assistance.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

v

FOREWORD

CHAPTER I.
The Nature of Venial Sin.

1. Definition of Sin----------------------------- - ---------------- 1

2. Effects of Sin__ '______________________ _________7
3. Definition of Venial Sin

9

4. The Ultimate End of Venial Sin---------------- ---------- 12
5. Equality of Offences Against God------------------------ 21

6. Effects of Venial Sin

22

CHAPTER II.
The Process

of

Remission of Venial Sin.

1. Relation of Remission to the Nature of Sin

29

2. Venial Sin and the Fervor of Charity 31
3. The Act of the Penitent

34

4. Qualities Required in the Act of Penance for Venial Sin_ 37
5. Sanctifying Grace and the Remission of Venial Sin— 46
6. Comparison of the Remission of Mortal and Venial Sin SO

7. Remission of Venial Sin After Death____________ — 52
8. Remission of Temporal Punishment for Venial Sin— 54

vii

jl
i

CHAPTER III.
Remedies

for

Venial Sin.

1. Statement of Council of Trent$9
a. Multisque Aliis Remediis·.

2. Sacramental Means for the Remission of Venial Sin — 60
3. Extreme Unction as a Remedy for Venial Sin----------63

4. Reception of the Holy Eucharist as a Means for
the Remission of Venial Sin

68

5. Extra-Sacramental Remedies for Venial Sin

81

b. Poenitentia :

6. Sacramental Penance as a Remedy for Venial Sin__ 86
7. Effects from the Intrinsic Power of the Sacrament__ 90
8. Effects from the Acts of the Penitent

97

9. Summary of the History of Confession of Venial Sin_ 99

CONCLUSION

105

BIBLIOGRAPHY

107

INDEX

in

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE _ _______ —___ ____ ____ ____ 119

viii

CHAPTER I

THE NATURE OF VENIAL SIN
Any discussion of the remission of sin depends upon the nature
of sin as its material element. Thus, a consideration of the nature
of venial sin is a necessary preliminary to the discussion of the
remission of venial sin. Through a comparison to mortal sin and
through a brief treatment of the problems involved in the very
concept of venial sin it is hoped that the true nature and results
of venial sin will be made evident.
The traditional definition of sin is taken from the work Contra
Faustum Manichaeum of Saint Augustine; “Sin is any deed, or
word, or desire, which is contrary to the eternal law.”1 This def­
inition was accepted by Saint Thomas and forms the basis for
his definition of sin.* Relative to this definition there are several
points worthy of note.

In the words “deed, or word, or desire” there can be included
only human actions.’ For these alone are the proper matter of
morality, and here Saint Augustine is presenting the material
element of sin.1 In the constitution of every human act there are
three essential elements.’ There must be present a practical ante­
cedent knowledge of the act which extends, at least in a confused
manner, to the formality of the act. This knowledge must be more
than a simple apprehension of fact, it must contain an act of
1 Augustine, Contra Faustum Manichaeum, lib. 22, c. 27 (ML 42.418) :
Peccatum est factum vel dictum vel concupitum aliquid contra legem
aeternam.
* Summa Theologica, (hereafter to be referred to as S.T.), 1-2, q. 71, a. 6, in
corp.
* Ibid., q. 1, a. 1, in corp.; Billuart, Charles, Summa Sancti Thomae, (Palme,
Paris, 1876) vol. 2, De Peccatis, Diss. 1, art. 2.
‘ S. T., 1-2, q. 71, a. 6, in corp.
‘ Merkelbach, Benedict, O.P., Summa Theologiae Moralis, (8 ed., Descles,
Paris, 1949) vol. 1, no. 52.

1

2

The Remission of Venial Sin

judgment as to the conformity of this action to the attainment
of the true final end of man. In order to move the will the intel­
lect must present the action as something which is good, and
therefore desireable. This good can be real, as it is when there is
congruity between this act and the rational seeking of man’s true
final end; or it can be apparent, as it is when there is incongruity
between it and the attainment of this final end. Now, the act of
the will is essential to the moral act, and it moves only toward
the good which has been presented as desireable by the intellect.
The act of the will is consequent to the act of the intellect, and its
extension is limited exactly by the intellectual concept of the good
thing in itself and in its relationships to other goods, both mediate
and final. The third necessary factor is the freedom of the will in
the pursuit of this good. This freedom is not an absence of moti­
vation but a freedom of choice among various goods. In this life
no good thing is presented to the will—and this includes our
limited conceptual knowledge of the infinite Good—which is, of
itself, so compelling as to strip the will of its freedom. The will
retains the freedom of choice or at least the freedom to act or not
to act. This freedom of the will is the basis of imputability. To
the degree, however, that any one of these three factors is missing
or impaired, to that same degree will the resultant act be an im­
perfect human act with a parallel and consequent decrease in
imputability.
The human act which is imputed to the agent may be either
an act of commission or of omission. In every act of omission
there must be some positive act of the will on the part of the one
responsible if there is to be a human act and imputability for the
omission."
The phrase “contrary to the eternal law” refers to the formal
element of sin.’ Sin is a morally evil human act. Now, human
acts are morally evil in so far as they lack conformity to their
proper norm, and the lex aeterna is the ultimate directive norm
* S. T., 1-2, q. 71, a. 5, in corp.; Merkelbach, op. cit., vol. 1, no. 60; Billuart,
op. cit., Diss. 1, art. 3.
’ S. T., 1-2, q. 71, a. 6, in corp.; Billuart, op. cit., Diss. 1, art. 2.

The Nature of Venial Sin

3

of human acts. Reference will be made constantly to the lex
aeterna since this is used by Saint Thomas as the criterion of sin.
The relation of the eternal law to the natural law is clearly stated
by Saint Thomas:

Therefore, since all things subject to divine providence
are ruled and measured by the eternal law, as was stated
above, it is evident that all things partake in some way
in the eternal law, in so far as from its impression upon
them they have their inclinations to their proper acts
and ends. Now among the others, the rational creature
is subject to divine providence in a more excellent man­
ner, in so far as he is made a participant in providence,
providing for himself and for others. So he also has a
share in the divine reason through which he has his na­
tural inclination to his proper act and end. And such
participation of the eternal law in the rational creature
is called the natural law.8

The natural law and the eternal law are, therefore, one in
reality, the natural law being but a participation in the eternal
law by rational beings.* However, in addition to the natural law
and those “particular determinations, devised by human reason,
which are called human laws”,10 there is need of divine positive
law:
Now, if man were ordained to no other end than that
which is proportionate to his natural ability, there would
’ S. T., 1-2, q. 91, a. 2, in corp.:
Unde cum omnia quae divinae providentiae subduntur, a lege aeterna re­
gulentur et mensurentur, ut ex dictis patet; manifestum est quod omnia
participant aliqualiter legem aetemam, inquantum scilicet ex impressione
eius habent inclinationes in proprios actus et fines. Inter cetera autem,
rationalis creatura excellentiori quodam modo divinae providentiae par­
ticeps, sibi ipsi et aliis providens. Unde et in ipsa participatur ratio aetema,
per quam habet naturalem inclinationem ad debitum actum et finem. Et
talis participatio legis aeternae in rationali creatura lex naturalis dicitur.
• Ibid., ad 1.

Et istae particulares dispositiones adinventae secundum rationem hu­
manam, dicuntur leges humanae...
” Ibid., a. 3, in corp.:

4

The Remission of Venial Sin

be no need for man to have any further direction, on the
part of his reason, in addition to the natural law and the
humanly devised law which is derived from it. But since
man is ordained to an end of eternal happiness which
exceeds man’s natural ability, as we have stated above,
therefore it was necessary that, in addition to the natural
and the human law, man should be directed to his end
by a law given by God.“
In reference to the eternal law Saint Thomas looks to the ulti­
mate norm of morality and to the ultimate end of man. It will be
useful to have the same concept of the eternal law as Saint
Thomas when we consider his statement on the relation of venial
sin to the eternal law.

Again, it is in the work of Saint Augustine, Contra Faustum
Manichaeum, that the definition of the eternal law as the “divine
intellect anda will of God commanding the conservation of the
natural order and forbidding its disturbance.” “ is found. In the
words of Saint Thomas the eternal law is “nothing else than the
exemplar of divine wisdom, as directing all actions and move­
ments.” “ It is the direction of all creatures to their proper ends
in accord with their natures, Thus, for the irrational creature this
direction will be matter of physical necessity, while for the intel­
ligent creature it will be a matter of moral obligation. Now, taking
11 Ibid., a. 4, corp.
Et si quidem homo ordinaretur tantum ad finem qui non excederet pro­
portionem naturalis facultatis hominis, non oporteret quod homo haberet
aliquid directivum ex parte rationis supra legem naturalem et legem hu­
manitus positam, quae ab eo derivatur. Sed quia homo ordinatur ad finem
beatitudinis aeternae, quae excedit proportionem naturalis facultatis hu­
manae, ut supra habitum est, ideo necessarium fuit ut supra legem natu­
ralem et humanam, dirigeretur etiam ad suum finem lege divinitus data.
“ Suarez holds that this “vel” should be translated as “and”, De Legibus, 1-2,
c. 6, no. 13.
“ Augustine, op. cit., (ML 42.418):
... ratio divina vel voluntas Dei ordinem naturalem conservari iubens,

perturbari vetans.
11 S. T., 1-2, q. 93, a. 1, in corp.
Et secundum hoc, lex aeterna nihil aliud est quam ratio divinae sapien­
tiae, secundum quod est directive omnium actuum et motionum.

The Nature of Venial Sin

j

j
j
'

Î
I

I
;

i

i
ί
J

J.

5

man as he is, the eternal law directs him and all of his actions,
under fitting sanctions, to his proper supernatural ultimate end
which consists in the immediate intuitive contemplation of the es­
sence of God.“ In this direction it takes into account the three
relationships of man; to God, to himself, and to other men. The
eternal law, then, is concerned with the ultimate end of man and
with his actions in so far as they affect his orientation to this
ultimate end.
Man has the obligation of tending, in his every act, towards
God. Retaining his freedom, man can, however, choose as to his
ultimate end. In other words, man can choose as to whether he
will seek his happiness in the uncreated Good where it truly
exists; or in some created good which merely simulates the potency of true satisfaction of man’s hunger for happiness. If this end
is to be ultimate, in the sense of final, and so not referable to
another, there can only be two ultimate ends; God, or some
created good.” When a man acts in virtue of his desire to seek
his happiness in God as his ultimate end, he acts virtuously; but
when a man acts in virtue of his desire to seek happiness in some
creature as his ultimate end, he sins. Man in acting can choose
only one final end.1’ Of course, since man has a moral obligation
to seek God as his last end, he must realize whether his actions
are leading him to this end or to some other end if he is to be
imputable for them. He is guided in this knowledge by the various
laws and his conscience. Whether he must have a final end in
each action, apart from the sense in which God is the necessary
ultimate end of every human act in that He is the ultimate Good
which draws the will to seek the good in every act, even in mortal
sin, is a problem which will be discussed fully below because of
its peculiar application in the case of venial sin.
” Benedict XII, Apostolic Constitution: Benedictus Deus, Jan. 29, 1336, E. S.
530.
“ Gredt, Joseph, O.SJB., Elementa Philosophiae (Herder, Friburg, 1937) vol.
2, no. 896:
... continet disiunctionem completam. Homo qui in omni actu humano
agit propter finem ultimum, pro fine ultimo habet aut bonum creatum
aut bonum increatum.
»’ S. T., 1-2, q. 1, a. 5, corp.

The Remission of Venial Sin

6

It is important to note that the ultimate end, in the sense used
above, refers to the good in itself, the thing in which man seeks
his happiness, the material ultimate end. In Gredt it is stated:
The ultimate end is divided into the formal ultimate
end and the material ultimate end. The formal ultimate
end, or formal happiness, is happiness in general and in
the abstract. The material ultimate end, or the ultimate
end in the concrete and particular, is objective happi­
ness, or the object which is sought as the ultimate end,
in so far as it is not ordered to some further end, and the
one seeking it depends on it for his formal happiness.1*

Happiness, then, is the ultimate formal end of both virtuous
and sinful actions. The object in which happiness is sought, in
God or a creature, is the important criterion. Now, happiness in
general, or beatitudo in communi, is not a third material ultimate
end. It does not mediate between the two terms of the complete
disjunction of created and uncreated good as the ultimate mate­
rial end.” This is, at least, the more common opinion.
The consideration of the material ultimate end is basic to mo­
rality. For it is in this choice by man as to the source from which
he will seek his secondary final end,” or happiness, that the es­
sence of sin lies. Man has an obligation from the eternal law to
perform every human act in such a manner that he will attain his
true final end which is, objectively, God; and formally, the pos” Gredt, op. cit., (3 ed., Herder, Friburg, 1932) vol. 2, no. 742:
Finis ultimus distinguitur formalis et materialis. Finis ultimus formalis est
ipsa ratio boni in abstracto: beatitudo in communi et in abstracto. Finis
ultimus materialis seu finis ultimus in concreto et in particulari est bea­
titudo objectiva seu objectum quod appetitur pro fine ultimo, quatenus
non ordinatur in aliud et appetens eo nititur habere beatitudinem suam.
” For a presentation which might tend to confuse these two separate aspects
see: Regatillo-Zalba, Theologiae Moralis Summa, (BA.C., Madrid, 1952)
vol. 1, no. 28:
lam vero, finis ultimus propter quem homo potest agere triplex concipi
potest: Deus, bonum infinitum; creaturae, bonum finitum; beatitudo in
communi concepta.
“ Cathrein, Victor, S.J., Philosophia Moralis, (Herder, Friburg, 1927) p. 32,
no. 39.

The Nature of Venial Sin

7

session of God. His way to this goal is shown through the norms
of morality, the manifestive norm which remotely is the divine
Intelligence, and proximately is human reason, and the prescrip­
tive norm which remotely is the eternal law and proximately the
natural law, with human and divine positive law, when taken
objectively, and man’s conscience, when taken subjectively.

When a human act is performed which does not have God as
its ultimate end, when any deed, word, or desire engages man’s
will in violation of the eternal law, sin in the full sense has been
committed. For since man can have but one ultimate end,11 the
choice of one necessarily implies the rejection of the other. Man,
then, by turning to a created good, and seeking in it his ultimate
happiness, turns away from God. This conversion to a mutable
good, with the consequent aversion from the immutable Good, is
sin, perfect sin, or sin in the full sense. This is the violation of the
eternal law, this is an offense against God, and only this.
THE EFFECTS OF SIN
Punishment is proportioned to sin. Now, sin comprises
two things. First, there is the turning away from the im­
mutable Good, which is infinite; and therefore, in this
respect, sin is infinite. Secondly, there is the inordinate
turning to a mutable good. In this respect, sin is finite,
both because the mutable good itself is finite, and be­
cause the movement of turning toward it is finite, since
the acts of a creature cannot be infinite. Accordingly,
in so far as sin consists in turning away from something,
its corresponding punishment is the pain of loss, which
is also infinite because it is the loss of the infinite Good,
that is, God. But, in so far as sin turns inordinately to­
ward something, its corresponding punishment is the
pain of sense which is also finite.1*
® S. T., 1-2, q. 1, a. 5, corp.
a Ibid., q. 87, a. 4, corp.·.
Dicendum quod poena proportionatur peccato. In peccato autem duo sunt.
Quorum unum est aversio ab incommutabili bono, quod est infinitum,
unde ex hac parte peccatum est infinitum. Aliud quod est in peccato, est

8

The Remission of Venial Sin

Thus Saint Thomas indicates the major results of the act of
sin. In turning away from God, the sinner has lost the principle
of his supernatural life, charity. With reference to the powers of
the sinner, this loss is irreparable and so everlasting.

Now, disturbance of an order is sometimes reparable,
sometimes irreparable, because a defect which destroys
the principle is irreparable, while defects can be repaired
in virtue of the principle if the principle be saved...
Now, in every order there is a principle by which one
becomes a member of that order. Consequently, if a sin
destroys the principle of the order by which man’s will
is subject to God, the disorder will be such as to be con­
sidered, in itself, irreparable, although it is possible to
repair it by the power of God. Now, the principle of this
order is the last end, to which man adheres by charity.
Therefore, whatever sins turn man away from God, so
as to destroy charity, considered in themselves, incur a
debt of eternal punishment.”

The resultant state of aversion, or sin, in which the agent re­
mains after the sinful action has been performed, is known as
the stain of sin. It is, simply, the privation of sanctifying grace
inordinata conversio ad commutabile bonum. Et ex hac parte peccatum
est finitum, tum quia ipsum bonum commutabile est finitum; tum etiam
quia ipsa conversio est finita, non enim possunt esse actus creaturae in­
finiti. Ex parte igitur aversionis respondet peccato poena damni, quae
etiam est infinita: est enim amissio infiniti boni, scilicet Dei. Ex parte
autem inordinatae conversionis respondet ei poena sensus, quae etiam est
finita.
“ Ibid., a. 3, corp.·.
Pervertit autem aliquis ordinem quandoque quidem reparabiliter, quan­
doque autem irreparabiliter. Semper enim defectus quo subtrahitur prin­
cipium, irreparabilis est; si autem salvetur principium, eius virtute alii
defectus reparari possunt ... Cuiuslibet autem ordinis est aliquod prin­
cipium, per quod aliquis fit particeps illius ordinis. Et ideo si per peccatum
corrumpatur principium ordinis quo voluntas hominis subditur Deo, erit in­
ordinatio, quantum est de se, irreparabilis, etsi reparari possit virtute
divina. Principium autem huius ordinis est ultimus finis, cui homo in­
haeret per caritatem. Et ideo quaecumque peccata avertunt a Deo, cari­
tatem auferentia, quantum est de se, inducunt reatum aeternae poenae.

(
f

Λ

11

*

The Nature of Venial Sin

9

which follows from the aversion of the agent from God; and it
is this loss of grace which Saint Thomas calls “loss of splendor”.2*
Now, when a soul cleaves to things by love, there is a
certain kind of contact in the soul; and when man sins,
he cleaves to certain things against the light of reason
and of the divine law, as was shown above, [q. 71, a. 6]
Therefore, the loss of splendor, occasioned by this con­
tact, is metaphorically called a stain on the soul.25

As a result of mortal sin, then, the sinner has severed his union
with God in charity, his privation of sanctifying grace remains
as a stain in the soul, and through his state of aversion he renders
himself liable to everlasting punishment and even to the danger
of repeated sin.25
VENIAL SIN, ITS DEFINITION

In every mention so far made, and necessarily so as a frame
of reference, sin has been treated in its full sense, as aversion
from God and complete conversion to some created good in which
the sinner seeks his formal ultimate end. However, all sins are
not of this nature. The Council of Trent speaks of “venial sins,
by which we are not cut off from the grace of God, and into
which we fall more frequendy__ ” ” This sin is compatible with
the union of man to his final end through charity. Therefore in
its very nature it is different from mortal sin.
24 Ibid., q. 89, a. 1, corp.
25 Ibid., q: 86, a. 1, corp.·.
Est autem quasi quidam animae tactus, quando inhaeret aliquibus rebus
per amorem. Cum autem peccat, adhaeret rebus aliquibus contra lumen
rationis et divinae legis, ut ex supradictis patet. Unde ipsum detrimen­
tum nitoris ex tali contactu proveniens macula animae metaphorice voca­
tur.
22 See: Scheeben, Matthias, Mysteries of Christianity, translated by Vollert,
Cyril (Herder, St. Louis, 1951) pp. 248-259.
21 Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter 5; E. S. no. 899:
Nam venialia, quibus a gratia Dei non excludimur et in quae frequentius
labimur..

10

The Remission o/ Venial Sin

The definition of venial sin is simply this; it is a morally evil
act without aversion from God.” A sin can be of such a nature
in two ways:
... a sin is called venial because it does not contain any­
thing, either partially or totally, to prevent its being
pardoned; partially, as when a sin contains something
diminishing its guilt, for example, a sin committed from
weakness or from ignorance, and this is called venial
from the cause; totally, through not destroying the order
to the last end, and therefore deserving temporal punish­
ment, but not everlasting punishment.”

In the first manner mentioned by Saint Thomas any sin could
become venial. Due to imperfection in the human act there is
consequent diminution of imputability on the part of the sinner
which renders his offence venial. In such a case the act itself,
taken objectively, would be sufficient for a mortal sin. It is the
peculiar circumstance on the part of the sinner which prevents
the sin from being mortal. In every mortal sin, as was said above,
the sinner must realize, in a general manner at least, the serious­
ness of his action, and in view of this realization he must freely
perform the act. If the perfection of the human act is not present
the sin is, at most, venial. As far as the nature of venial sin is
concerned, this type of venial sin presents no great problem. It is
with deliberate venial sin that difficulties arise, when an evil
moral act which is of its very nature a small offence, is freely
performed with full realization of its evil nature. It is the second
type of venial sin which will be the object of discussion below.
To return to the consideration of venial sin in general, such sin;
“__ excludes only actual reference of the human act to God’s
” Billuart, op. cit., Diss. 1, art. 2; Priimmer, Dominic, O.P., Manuale Theolo­
giae Moralis, (10 ed., Herder, Barcelona, 1946) vol. 1, no. 367; AertnysDamen, Theologia Moralis, (15 ed., Marietti, Rome, 1947) vol. 1, no. 233.
“ S. T., 1-2, q. 88, a. 2, in corp.:
Alio modo dicitur veniale, quia non habet in se unde veniam non consequatur, vel totaliter, vel in parte. In parte quidem, sicut cum habet in se
aliquid diminuens culpam, ut cum fit ex infirmitate vel ignorantia. Et
hoc dicitur veniale ex causa. In toto autem ex eo quod non tollit ordinem
ad ultimum finem, unde non meretur poenam aetemam, sed temporalem.

f

*

}

1

(

The Nature of Venial Sin

11

glory, and not habitual reference; because it does not exclude
charity, which refers man to God habitually.”" Although venial
sin is a transgression of a law,51 and so is evil morally, it has no
direct effect on man’s reference to his final end through charity.

Now, it has been seen above that sin is essentially the rupture
of this reference of man to God, which takes place through the
aversion of sin. How, then, can venial sin be correctly called sin?
This point is treated by Saint Thomas:
The division of sin into venial and mortal is not a
division of genus into its species, which have an equal
share of the generic nature; but it is the division of an
analogous term into its members, of which it is predi­
cated according to priority and posteriority. Conse­
quently, the perfect notion of sin, which Saint Augustine
gives, applies to mortal sin. On the other hand, venial
sin is called a sin according to an imperfect notion of
sin, and in relation to mortal sin; even as an accident is
called a being in relation to a substance, according to an
imperfect notion of being. For it is not against the law,
since he who sins venially neither does what the law for­
bids, nor omits what the law prescribes to be done; but
he acts outside of the law, through not observing the
mode of reason which the law intends.”
” Ibid, a. 1, ad 2:
Veniale autem peccatum non excludit habitualem ordinationem actus hu­
mani in gloriam Dei, sed solum actualem, quia non excludit caritatem,
quae habitualiter ordinat in Deum.
" Billuart, op. cit., Diss. 1, art. 1, resp. ad 1.
” S. T., 1-2, q. 88, a. 1, ad 1:
Dicendum quod divisio peccati in veniale et mortale non est divisio generis
in species, quae aequaliter participant rationem generis, sed analogi in ea
de quibus praedicatur secundum prius et posterius. Et ideo perfecta ratio
peccati, quam Augustinus ponit, convenit peccato mortali. Peccatum
autem veniale dicitur peccatum secundum rationem imperfectam, et in
ordine ad peccatum mortale; sicut accidens dicitur ens in ordine ad sub­
stantiam, secundum imperfectam rationem entis. Non est contra legem,
quia venialiter peccans non facit quod lex prohibet, nec praetermittit id
ad quod lex per praeceptum obligat; sed facit praeter legem, quia non
observat modum rationis quem lex intendit.

12

The Remission of Venial Sin

Here is the phrase “outside of the law, not against the law” "
used in the description of venial sin. In view of the previous dis­
cussion of the eternal law, this statement of Saint Thomas is
easily seen in its true meaning. The eternal law directs man to his
last end which is God; and venial sin, quite simply, has no direct
effect upon man’s relation to his ultimate end. Venial sin, then,
is outside of the essence of the law, and so cannot be against the
law. It is a deordination about the means to an end rather than
about the end itself, and of its very nature, it is incapable of
affecting the relation to the ultimate end, for once it does, it is
no longer venial sin but mortal sin, as then it would be a violation
of the eternal law.
THE ULTIMATE END OF VENIAL SIN
The ultimate end of venial sin
but a problem whose discussion
the true nature of venial sin and
discussions. The problem can be

poses an oft treated problem,"
will aid in the establishing of
which will be of value in later
briefly stated, with Billuart:

Since venial sin, at least when it is fully deliberate,
is a truly human act, it has a proximate end, as every
human act is directed to an end, and it has not only a
proximate end, but also an ultimate end, since the
proximate end could exercise no influence, nor act as a
final cause, save by the power of the ultimate end, just as
a secondary efficient cause can have no effect, unless it be
moved by the power of the prime efficient cause, as was
stated of the ultimate end. The question is, then, what is
the actual end of venial sin?"
“ See also; De Malo, q. 1, a. 1, ad 1.
“ On this point see: Lottin, Odon, Principes de Morale, (L’Abbage du Mont
Cesar, Louvain, 1946) vol. 2, pp. 241-249; Sagues, Joseph, S.J., Summa
Sacrae Theologiae, De Peccatis, (BA.C., Madrid, 1955) vol. 2, pp. 912-914;
De Letter, P., S.J., Penial Sin and Its Pinal Goal, Thomist, vol. 16, (Jan.
1953) pp. 32-70; De Letter, P., S.J., Penial Sin: Paradox and Illogicality,
Irish. Quarterly, vol. 17, (July, 1955) pp. 258-264; McNicholI, A., O.P., The
Ultimate End of Penial Sin, Thomist, vol. 2, (July, 1940) pp. 373-409.
80 Billuart, op. cit.. Diss. 8, art. 4, no. 2:
Cum peccatum veniale, saltem ex genere quando est perfecte deliberatum,

The Nature of Venial Sin

13

This question has, as might be expected, given rise to various
solutions. As a preface to the consideration of these, it is well
to note that Saint Thomas did not treat of this problem. Many
of his statements are used in bolstering different opinions, yet
no one can quote Saint Thomas definitely and explicitly as the
defender of his opinion.

Briefly then, although with the danger of losing some slight
nuances of meaning, the essential solutions can be classed as
follows.

1. The opinion that the ultimate end of venial sin lies neither in
God nor in a creature, but rather in beatitudo in communi, happi­
ness in general.” In explanation of this act by which the will seeks
no ultimate material end, Billot holds that the will is but following
the intellect which has an abstract concept of goodness in gen­
eral." Sagues denies the possibility of an act of the will in such
conditions, and demands a determined object from which happi­
ness is to be sought.”

Against this opinion there is the obvious difficulty that the end
of mortal sin could also be considered as beatitudo in communi.
There is no dichotomy between beatitudo in communi and an
ultimate end which is objective, be it God or some created good.
Beatitudo in communi is simply the formal aspect of the ultimate
end. It must be sought in some determined object. In his dis­
cussion of the ultimate end for all human actions, Saint Thomas
sit actio proprie humana, habet finem proximum, siquidem omnis actio hu­
mana sit propter finem, neque solum habet finem proximum, sed etiam
ultimum, quia finis proximus non influit, neque causât finaliter nisi virtute
finis ultimi, sicut causa secunda efficiens non efficit, nec movet, aisi vir­
tute primae causae efficientis, ut dictum est de ultimo fine. Quaeritur ergo
quis sit iste ultimus finis actualis peccati venialis?
” Billot, Ludovico, S.J., De Personali Et Originali Peccato, (6 ed., Gregorianum, Rome, 1931); Regatillo-Zalba, op. cit., vol. 1, no. 631; De Wiart,
Etienne, De Peccatis et Fitiis, (5 ed., Dessain, Mechlinae, 1932) no. 32.

" Billot, op. cit., p. 122.
“ Sagues, op. cit., p. 913.

14

The Remission of Venial Sin

demands a material final end as the ultimate end for all such
acts."
2. The opinion that the venial sinner refers his act of sin to God
as the ultimate end, but that he does so not actually but habitual­
ly." This opinion is based on this statement by Saint Thomas;
“He who sins venially does not seek his happiness in a creature,
but uses the creature; for he refers it habitually to God, although
not actually. Nor in this does he act against the law, since he is
not bound to refer actually to God at all times.”“ The proponents
of this opinion hold that the ultimate material end of the act of
venial sin is God. However, the act of venial sin is referred to
Him only habitually, and so, ineffectually. A created good, which
should be a means to the ultimate end, is used, but not as a means
to an ultimate end. It is used only in so far as it is not destructive
of habitual charity. In this manner the ultimate end would be
exerting a negative influence on the act by setting limits beyond
which it would not be allowed.

This solution seems to entail certain difficulties. In the per­
formance of an act, an habitual reference or intention is the
equivalent of no reference or intention. From its very definition,
although it remains as never having been revoked, such an in­
tention exerts no influence on the act. In the moral consideration
of the act, if it has God as its ultimate end only habitually, then
it has no ultimate end. In the ontological consideration of the
act, the ultimate end has to be positive, for it is the prime moving
cause. So a negative influence would certainly not suffice. Billuart
in commenting on the above quoted statement of Saint Thomas
says :
While the other mentioned manners of reference re" S. T., 1-2, q. 1, corp.; Contra Gentiles, 3, c. 2; Note that the term material
here is used as the objective end, as distinguished from the enjoyment of
the end or the subjective end. It is not used as opposed to spiritual.
40 John of St. Thomas, Cursus Theologicus, (Vives, Paris, 1885) vol. 1, In 1-2,
disp. 1, a. 7, no. 40.
“ De Malo, q. 7, a. 1, ad 4:
Dicendum quod ille qui peccat venialiter non fruitur creatura, sed utitur
ea; refert enim eam habitu in Deum, licet non actu. Nec in hoc contra
praeceptum facit, quia non tenetur semper actu referre in Deum.

The Nature of Venial Sin

15

tain their probability, it appears to us that Saint Thomas,
when he speaks of venial sin in the just man as being
referred habitually to God as the ultimate end, ' intends
nothing else than to say that venial sin in the just man
is compatible with the habit of charity, and that venial
sin does not exclude charity..."

3. A third approach to the problem holds that venial sin is the
only human act which lacks an ultimate end. This solution seems
to have been presented because of the difficulties in the other
solutions." This proposition denies one of the bases for the prob­
lem. However, since every act of venial sin must be a human act,
for when there is no human act there can be no actual sin, it
would seem that it should be the same as all other human acts
and demand reference to a final end. If this element of reference
to an ultimate end is to be denied there must be some explana­
tion. The mere denial because of a difficulty encountered is not
sufficient.
Another point which wisely is not mentioned in these solutions
is the problem of venial sin in a person who is not in the state of
grace. Such sins are possible. They certainly are not referred,
even habitually, to God as the habit of charity is not present.
Still they are venial sins and not mortal so they cannot have a
creature as their ultimate end.
To dismiss easily all of these solutions as erroneous would be
to slight the theological acumen of the authors who have pre­
sented them as their considered answer to this problem. It is
possible, however, while granting them their due respect and
probability to explore a more recent, and it seems more compel­
ling, solution."
“ Billuart, of. cit., Diss. 8, art. 4, no. 2:
His omnibus dicendi modis in sua probabilitate relictis, videtur nobis S.
Thomam, dum dicit peccatum veniale in justo referri habitualiter in Deum
ut in ultimum finem, nihil aliud velle quam quod peccatum veniale in justo
compatiatur charitatem habitualem eamque non excludat...
*’ Scotus, In 4, d. 49, q. 10; Vasquez, In 1-2, d. 5, c. 2, no. 11; Suarez, De Fine
Hominis, d. 1, s. 6, nos. 2-5; Sagues, op. cit., p. 914.
“ Lottin, op. cit., pp. 241-249; De Letter, art. cit., (Thomist, Jan., 1953).

16
i
I

I
I
J
J

I

*

j
J
■
!

The Remission of Penial Sin

In the proposition that every human act demands reference to
an ultimate end, Saint Thomas is alluding to the ontological ne­
cessity of this reference and to no other order. Thus, the ultimate
end is absolutely necessary for the existence of the human act for
without the influence of this first cause the will could not be attracted to any of the intermediate causes which are means to this
end. In this sense God is the ultimate end of all human acts,
whether they be mortal sins, or venial sins, or virtuous acts, in
the moral order. He is the ultimate end from their very existence
as human acts. This influence of the ultimate end, in the onto­
logical order, need not enter into the consciousness of the agent,
as would be necessary if this were in the moral order. This in­
fluence of the ultimate end is a requisite for the existence of the
act not for its imputability.

Now all of this has been applied in the ontological order. It
has validity with reference to the existence of the human act,
and since venial sin must be a human act, it has validity with
regard to the existence of venial sin. However, as a moral act,
venial sin must be considered in another order, the moral order.
This order is based on human acts, and any influence of an ulti­
mate end in this order must be a conscious influence. Thus, this
opinion would hold that Saint Thomas demanded reference to an
ultimate end as necessary for the existence of every human act
and that he never brought this demand into the moral order.
This transition would seem to have been made after Saint Thomas.
■
;■
>. ·
' >
As a moral action, then, it would be possible for venial sin
to have no actual reference to a final end. In this order the ultimate end has an influence on acts only in so far as it enters the
consciousness. It can be adverted to explicitly, or implicitly, as
in the observance or breach of the law. Thus to seek a thing which
is forbidden as a grave sin, would be implicitly to take this thing
as an ultimate end. Now man can consider, in his discursive rea­
soning process, the principle and the conclusions from this prin­
ciple separately. In the case in point the ultimate end is com­
parable to the principle and the means to this end are comparable
to the conclusions which flow from this principle. Just as man

The Nature of Venial Sin

17

can consider the principle and the conclusions separately, so also
can man focus his attention on an act which is a means to an
end without considering the end. Of intelligent beings only man
can do this. Thus it is precisely because of his intuitive knowledge,
by which he sees the conclusion immediately in the light of the
principle, that the angel cannot sin venially. For in every act he
acts in the immediate light of the ultimate end.“
This distinction of the consideration of the ultimate end and
the act as being performed is valid only in the case of venial sin.
In the case of mortal sin the advertance to the final end, apart
from God, enters into the very act of sin itself. Once the person
realizes that this act is a serious transgression of the law, by that
very fact he adverts to its opposition to God as his ultimate end,
and so he cannot separate the two considerations of end and means
to this end. Here there is an act which due to its gravity includes,
necessarily, a conscious reference to an ultimate end. So in a case
of theft, to steal a thousand dollars is a matter of such gravity
that it seriously violates the law, and when the person realizes
this, he is adverting to the ultimate ends which are concerned in
his action. He chooses between the wealth and God as his ultimate
end. In the case of the theft of ten cents there is no such neces­
sary advertance to ultimate ends. The person tempted to this small
theft knows that it will not separate him from God. He is not
faced with the choice of ultimate ends. He can focus his attention
on this small present good and not refer it actually to either God
or a created final end. The very lightness of his act frees it from
any necessity of choice between it and God.“a
“ S. T., 1-2, q. 89, a. 4, in corp; Billot, op. cit., p. 121.
“a The fundamental reason for the distinction between venial and mortal sin
poses a difficult problem which is not the point of the present discussion. It
is certain that venial sin exists, and as sin it is in some manner contra
Drum. Now, what is the origin of the radical difference between venial and
mortal sin, both of which are contra Drum? To answer that they are
contra Drum in different manners, that one includes an aversion from the
Ultimate End while the other does not, that one violates the Eternal Law
while the other does not, is to beg the question. The precise problem is the
reason for these facts. Considered objectively what reason can be given for
the basic difference between venial and mortal sin? To say that they differ

18

The Remission of Venial Sin

The last explanation, which seems to be the best solution of
the problem, takes a new approach which, in fact, eliminates the
difficulty. In the other three solutions the problem was accepted
and an answer attempted. For this reason the latter theory differs
from the flat denial of the third solution. There the need for
reference to an ultimate end was not questioned, while its existence, in the case of venial sin, was denied. Many of the elements
of the previous solutions were certainly valid, but the difficulty
was their failure to enter deeply enough into the problem. It is
acceptable to hold, in the light of Saint Thomas’ teaching, that
the end of venial sin is beatitudo in communi, just as it is the
end of mortal sin. However, the problem concerned the material
and not the formal ultimate end. That venial sin is ordered to a
final end habitually but not actually or virtually is also true.
However, in the problem as presented this would not be a sufficient answer, and since Saint Thomas did not raise the ques­
tion, it was not given as his answer. The psychological factor of
discursive reasoning is a common point to all explanations. It
explains how man can separate the end from the means, but in
itself it would not be an answer to the problem.
The real newness of this approach lies in its conclusion from a
study of Saint Thomas that the question of actual reference of
venial sin, in the moral order, should not be asked. There is no
such problem. This is presented as the mind of Saint Thomas.

In the admission that venial sin has no effective reference to
an ultimate material end there lies the explanation of the state­
ment of Saint Thomas that venial and mortal sin are divided as
or to show how they differ is not to explain the origin of this difference.
Is the basic reason a positive act of God establishing a hierarchy of offenses,
some of which are mortal and some of which, as a providential concession
to human weakness, are venial? This is not to say that all sins are objec­
tively mortal while some are imputed as venial, (cf. Errores Michaelis, du
Bay, ES. 1020) but rather to say that some sins are objectively venial
as a result of a positive act of God constituting them as such of their
very nature, (cf. Sagues, I.F., op. rit-, no. 890) This answer to the difficulty
would seem to be tenable, and indeed, one which draws our assent because

!
!

i

'
|
j

j

!
j
|
J

i

’
!
I

The Nature of Venial Sin

19

accident is from substance in the genus of being." Accident is a
partaker in being in relation to substance and according to an
imperfect notion of being. Accident lacks the elements which are
essential to separate, proper, existence. Venial sin lacks, in the
moral order, and here only, the effective positive influence of an
objective ultimate end. Thus, venial sin relies on the final end
of virtuous acts, although this is done habitually and not actual­
ly.*’ Therefore, just as accidents exist but do not have their own
direct and proper basis in the depths of being, so also, in the moral
order, venial sin exists without its own direct and proper reference
to an objective ultimate end. Venial sin exists in the substance of
acts which are directed to God, as the final end, that is, in human
acts which of their nature are referable to God.
Lottin, in his excellent study of the problem of the final end
of venial sin, lists five places where Saint Thomas touches on
venial sin and the final end." After a discussion of each place, he
says with regard to the reference of venial sins to an ultimate end:
In each of the five texts, which we have tried to place
in their context, we find not the slightest allusion to the
metaphysical principle which, nevertheless, he was up­
holding from the very beginning of his Commentary on
the Sentences. It is in another context that this idea is
evoked, that of the moral obligation of tending towards
God, the final end."

In his study he has concluded that the subject of the end of
venial sin, which Saint Thomas considered only on the moral
" Ibid., q. 88, a. 1, ad I.

*’ Ibid., q. 88, a. 1, ad 2.
“Ini Sent., d. 1, q. 3, ad 4; In 2 Sent., d. 42, q. 1, a. 3, ad 5; S. T., 1-2, q.
88, a. 1, ad 2; S. T., 2-2, q. 24, a. 10, ad 2; De Malo, q. 7, a. 1, ad 4.

" Lottin, op. tit., p. 247:
Dans aucun des cinq textes que nous avons tenu à replacer dans leur con­
texte, on ne trouve la moindre allusion à ce principe métaphysique que ce­
pendant il prouvait dès son Commentaire sur les Sentences. C’est dans un
autre contexte que se meut sa pensée, celui de l’obligation morale de tendre
vers Dieu, fin dernière.

20

The Remission of Venial Sin

level, was taken by the commentators to the ontological level
where they encountered the famous problem.50
At the end of his article Lottin says:

God remains the final end of the just man who sins
venially. Without a doubt, the act of venial sin is not
performed under actual, or even virtual influence from
God, for, in that case, the action would be morally good;
but the just man who sins venially remains under the
habitual influence of the true ultimate end, since, in con­
formity with his habitual disposition, he retains God as
the ultimate end of his life, from which he certainly does
not intend to separate himself, even in the act of sin it­
self. Thus we return to the very simple formula of Saint
Thomas.51

This formula is that of the habitual reference to God of the
venial sinner.”

j

Each of the proposed theories with regard to the final end of
venial sin has its own value. The main divergence in viewpoint
seems to center in the actual existence of the problem. The choice
of one solution, or the admission or rejection of the problem, is
not essential to the purpose of our discussion. However, the re­
view of the presented difficulty and of its various solutions, has a
very definite value in placing venial sin in its true perspective
and in showing its true nature.

|
i

Venial sin, the human act which is a violation of a minor law,
or of a major law in a small manner, and so not a violation of
“ Ibid., p. 244.
Ά Ibid., P. 249:
Dieu reste la fin dernière du juste qui pèche véniellemeat. Sans doute l’acte
du péché véniel ne se fait pas sous l’influence actuelle ou même virtuelle
de Dieu, car, dans ce cas, cet acte serait moralement bon; mais le juste
qui pèche véniellement reste sous l’influence habituelle de (a vraie fin dernière, puisque, selon sa disposition habituelle, il conserve Dieu comme le
but suprême de sa vie, dont il entend bien ne pas se séparer, même dans
l’acte du péché. Nous en revenons à la formule très simple de saint Thomas.
“ S. T., 1-2, q. 88, a. 1, ad 2.

|
j
|

|
t

The Nature of Venial Sin

21

the eternal law, is essentially an illogical act. It is the choice of a
means which leads to an end with the separation of the means
from the end and its use apart from any end. It is sin only
through an imperfect notion of sin, through analogy to mortal
sin. It does contain a certain deordination with regard to means
but it does not extend to ultimate ends. There is present a turn­
ing towards a creature but there is no turning away from God,
for the turning to the creature is limited to means and cannot
reach to ultimate ends. Of its essence venial sin is outside of the
eternal law as it does not extend to ultimate ends in itself or in
its effects.

EQUALITY OF OFFENCES AGAINST GOD

The very distinction of sins into venial and mortal is often the
occasion for an objection which is based on the equality of all of­
fences against God. For if an offence is measured by the dignity
of the person offended, and sins by the dignity of the person
sinned against, it, would seem to follow that all sins are equal
since all are offences against God. Therefore, the distinction of
mortal and venial sins would seem not to be valid, or at most to
be based upon a decision of the divine will not to give to venial
sins their full imputability."
In a certain sense it must be admitted that all sins are equal.
For aversion from God is either total or it is not present at all.
In this way, then, all sins must be equal. However, in the con­
version to a created good there must be admitted a variation
among sins as to type, intensity, and opposition to the eternal
law.

Venial sin is not sin in the full sense of the term because of its
very nature it contains no aversion from God.“ Furthermore,
since venial sin does not violate the eternal law it is not an of­
fence against God.“ From its nature, and not from some certain
“ Billot, op. cit., p. 107; Billuart, op. cit., Diss. 8, art. 1, Sagues, op. cit., p. 910,
Scholion 2; E. S., no. 1020.
“ S. T., 1-2, q. 72, a. S, corp.
“ De Malo, q. 7, a. 2, ad. 10; Suarez, d. 2, s. 5, no. 14; Prümmer, op. cit., vol.
1, no. 367d.

22

The Remission o/ Venial Sin

non-imputability granted by the will of God, venial sin cannot
be judged the equal of mortal sin on the basis of the person in­
sulted, as venial sin is not an insult against God. It is precisely
in the offence against God that the insult consists, and venial sin
not being an offence cannot be an insult.
On the difference between mortal and venial sin Saint Augustine
is most explicit:
If the two acts are equal because they are both crimes,
then mice and elephants are equal because they are both
animals, and flies and eagles are equal because they can
fly in the air.”

THE EFFECTS OF VENIAL SIN
As a result of the radical differences between the nature of
venial sin and the nature of mortal sin,” radically different results
can be expected from the two types of sin. In considering the
results of venial sin, emphasis must be placed on the relationship
between venial sin and sanctifying grace as this will be of great
importance in the treatment of the remission of venial sin.
Now, venial sin and sanctifying grace are completely compa­
tible.” It is on this point that venial sin differs infinitely from
mortal sin.” Mortal sin, of its very nature involves a turning away
from God who is infinite, while venial sin involves no such aver­
sion, and can exist with no direct effect on sanctifying grace
through which the soul is united to God." Mortal sin, from it na­
ture, requires that the sinner break the bonds of charity by which
he is oriented to God. Venial sin, whose range of effect is essen­
tially limited, reaches only to the means which were of themselves
" Augustine, Efist. 104, cap. 4, n. 14 (ML. 33.394) :
Aut si propterea sunt paria, quia utraque delicta sunt, mures et elephanti
pares erunt, quia utraque sunt animalia; muscae et aquilae, quia utraque
volatilia.
" Billuart, op. cit., Diss. 8, art. 2, Appendix.
“ Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 5, E. S., 899: S. T., 1-2, q. 88, a. 1,
corp.; De Malo, q. 7, a. 11, corp.
S. T., 1-2, q. 72, a. 5, ad 1.
“ Ibid., q. 89, a. 1, corp.

The Nature of Venial Sin

23

intended to lead man to God. It can never penetrate to the prin­
ciple of charity, effect its loss, or prevent its infusion. It can be
stated as certain that venial sin does not affect sanctifying grace
in the soul, and this is the specifying difference between mortal
and venial sin."

Just as it is certain that sanctifying grace is not lost through
venial sin, it is also certain that it is not diminished or lessened
by the commission of venial sin. Here the measure of grace, or
the degree of participation in the life of God, must be considered
as a form," and so any increase or decrease in grace must follow
the norms which are applicable to a form." Variation in the
measure of grace will depend upon these factors:
1. The agent, according to the power which he applies for the
reduction of potency to act.

2. The subject, according to its disposition to receive the form.
3. The form, as a habit, depending on its object for both its
Species and for its quantity.
Now, in the third manner, grace can never be increased or de­
creased, for its object is indivisible and infinite, being God as the
object of charity. However, grace can be greater or less in the
first manner, according to the will of God, and in the second
manner, according to the disposition of the person receiving grace.
Venial sin cannot directly cause the diminution of grace," for
there is no opposition between venial sin and the form which is
grace. Of its nature venial sin is beneath grace, as grace is a rela­
tion to the ultimate end and venial sin is limited to means to this
end. An excessive attachment to the means to an end does not
“ Ibid., q. 87, a. 3, corp., and q. 88, a. 1, corp, and ad. 2; De Malo, q. 7, a. 1,
corp.
" Ini Sent., d. 17, q. 1, a. 1.
“ See: De Malo, q. 7, a. 2, corp.
** Merkelbach, op. cit., vol. 1, no. 520; Gonzalez, Severino, S.J., De Gratia, in
Sacrae Theologiae Summa, (B.A.C., Madrid, 1953) vol. 3, p. 633, schol. 2.

H

24

The Remission of Venial Sin

necessarily imply a lessening in the desire for this end.® If there
were some opposition between grace and venial sin the multiplica­
tion of venial sins would result in the loss of grace, for grace is a
finite thing, and so the nature of venial sin would change as
it would no longer be reparable, it would be striking at the prin­
ciple of charity, and turning the soul from God. Also, every de­
crease in grace brings a decrease in glory. So if venial sin caused
a decrease in grace, and glory, it would be receiving an ever­
lasting punishment and it does not merit this.

However, it is quite possible for venial sin to prevent an in­
crease in grace. By the very act of sinning venially, the person
fails to perform a meritorious act and as a reward for the merito­
rious act there would have been an increase in grace. This is
actually a non-increase in grace, yet its effect is that the person
lacks grace which he could have had. Venial sin here affects grace
indirectly, but it has no effect on the grace already possessed by
the person.

Just as venial sin does not decrease sanctifying grace, it does
not lessen charity, the infused virtues, the gifts of the Holy Spirit,
nor merit which has been gained. This is true even when the
venial sin is against an infused virtue.®
Now, although venial sin does not diminish charity it does
lessen the fervor of charity. Due to the high importance of this
concept in the remission of venial sin, it will be helpful to see pre­
cisely what this lessening of the fervor of charity is. According
to Saint Thomas:
— fervor can be understood in two ways; the first way
entails the intensity with which the lover tends toward
the beloved; and such fervor is of the essence of charity,
and this is not diminished by venial sin. The other man­
ner of speaking of the fervor of charity considers it as
* The example is used of one who is over-attached to medicine, by this fact
there is implied no diminution in his desire for health which is the'end to
which the means, medicine, is ordered.
" Regatillo-Zalba, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 627, note 71; See also Primmer, op. cit.,
vol. 1, no. 393.

The Nature of Venial Sin

25

the overflow of the motion of love into the lesser facul­
ties, so that in some way, not only the heart, but even
the flesh rejoices in God; and it is this type of fervor
which is diminished by venial sin without any lessening
of the virtue of charity."

This concept of the fervor of charity will be of prime impor­
tance throughout the following chapters. It is to be noted that
the fervor is not that of tendency toward God. The diminution
of fervor is the direct effect of venial sin and an increase in the
fervor of charity will effect a remission of venial sin, for there is
a formal opposition between the two. Thus the effect of venial
sin is felt in the lesser faculties and not in the tendency of the
intellect and will to God as the ultimate end.

On the stain of venial sin Saint Thomas says :

__ a stain denotes a loss of splendor due to contact with
something, as may be seen in corporeal things, from which
the term has been transferred to the soul, by way of
likeness. Now, just as in the body there is a twofold
splendor, one resulting from the inward dispositions of
the members and colors, the other resulting from an
outward and added brightness, so too, in the soul, there
is a twofold splendor, one habitual, and so to speak, in­
trinsic, the other actual, like an outward brilliance. Now
venial sin is a hindrance to the actual splendor, because
it neither destroys nor diminishes the habit of charity
and of the other virtues . . . but only hinders their acts.
On the other hand, a stain denotes something permanent
in the thing stained, and therefore it seems, in the nature
of a loss of habitual rather than of actual splendor. So,
'"De Mala, q. 7, a. 2, ad 17:
... fervor potest accipi duplicitur. Uno modo secundum quod importat in­
tensionem inclinationis amantis in amatum; et talis fervor est essentialis
caritati, et non diminuitur per veniale peccatum. Alio modo dicitur fervor
caritatis secundum quod redundat motus dilectionis etiam in inferiores
vires, ut quodammodo non solum cor, sed etiam caro exultet in Deum; et
talis fervor diminuitur per veniale peccatum absque diminutione caritatis.

26

The Remission of Venial Sin
properly speaking, venial sin does not cause a stain in
the soul.”

In treating the stain of sin, Saint Thomas applies what has
been stated concerning the nature of venial sin. Since the stain
of sin and the privation of grace are one, there can be no true stain
from venial sin as it has no effect upon grace. The stain of mortal
sin is like a bodily deformity while the so called stain of venial
sin is like a splashing of mud upon the body. So mortal sin twists
the intellect and will, the higher faculties of the soul, from their
ultimate end which is God, and so deforms the soul permanently,
as this sin is of itself irreparable."’ Venial sin, however, is in the
lower faculties, as it does not extend to the consideration of the
ultimate ends, it is a transient act” which causes a lessening in
the overflow of the fervor of charity.”
Venial sin is truly sin, and sin brings a state of guilt to the
person who commits it.” The will of the sinner has been inor­
dinately turned to some created good. As long as this state of the
will perdures, the deordination perdures, and the person stands
guilty before God. There is, of course, a great difference between
• S. T., 1-2, q. 89, a. 1, corp.·.
... macula importat detrimentum nitons ex aliquo contactu, sicut in cor­
poralibus patet, ex quibus per similitudinem nomen maculae ad animam
transfertur. Sicut autem in corpore est duplex nitor, unus quidem ex intrinsica dispositione membrorum et coloris, alius autem ex exteriore claritate
superveniente; item etiam in anima est duplex nitor, unus quidem habitualis,
quasi intrinsecus, alius autem actualis, quasi exterior fulgor. Peccatum autem
veniale impedit quidem nitorem actualem, non tamen habitualem, quia non
excludit neque diminuit habitum caritatis et aliarum virtutum, ut infra
patebit, sed solum impedit earum actum. Macula autem importat aliquid
manens in re maculata, unde magis videtur pertinere ad detrimentum habi­
tualis nitoris quam actualis. Unde, proprie loquendo, peccatum veniale non
causât maculam in animam.
See also: S. T., 1-2, q. 86, a. 1, ad 3; Sagues, op. cit., p. 909; Scheeben,
op. cit., p. 257; De Lugo, Disputationes Scholasticae Et Morales, (Vives,
Paris, 1892) vol. 4, De Poenitentia, Disp. 9, Sect. 1.

" S. T., 1-2, q. 87, a. 3, corp.
70 Ibid., q. 88, a. 4, ad 3.
De Malo, q. 7, a. 3, ad 17.
” Scheeben, op. cit., p. 251.

The Nature of Venial Sin

27

the guilt of mortal and of venial sin. The mortal sinner has to
regain the principle of the supernatural life, which is charity, to
erase his guilt, while the merely venial sinner, has the principle
of charity still, and has but to withdraw his will from this deor­
dination to erase his guilt.” This will be treated in the next chap­
ter.
With the guilt of the sin the sinner also incurs a debt of pun­
ishment. In the case of mortal sin this punishment is everlasting,
while for venial sin it is temporal.” At times, however, venial sin
may receive an everlasting punishment. This can happen in the
case of one who dies with both mortal and venial sin on his soul.
The guilt of both and the punishment for both will be everlasting.
This is the effect of the mortal and not of the venial sin. This
point will be treated later in connection with the theory of Scotus
on the remission of venial sin.
The most terrible result of venial sin is the fact that “venial
sin, of its very nature, disposes to mortal sin . .
This applies
particularly to fully deliberate venial sin, as the disposition to
mortal sin comes as a result of habitual conversion to created
goods. The repetition of this conversion establishes a pattern of
behavior which will enable the will more easily to turn to some cre­
ated good as its ultimate end. Such an absolute conversion is mortal
sin. While the multiplication of venial sins will never cause a
mortal sin, this multiplication can dispose the agent to commit
a mortal sin. This disposition is the result of the repeated con­
version to created goods, of the constant rejection of actual grace,
and the constant stifling of the fervor of charity.

Having considered sin in its full sense and as contained in the
concept of venial sin, and having examined the nature, the end,
and the effects of venial sin, it remains now to determine precise­
ly in what the remission of venial sin consists. This will be the
burden of the following chapter.
” Merkelbach, op. cit., vol. 1, no. 520.
” S. T., 1-2, q. 87, a. 5, corp.; De Malo, q. 7, a. 1, corp.; E. S. 1020.
” S. T., 1-2, q. 88, a. 3, ad 3:
See also: Billuart, op. cit., Diss. 8, art. 3, no. 1.
Sed peccatum veniale per se disponit ad mortale...

CHAPTER Π
THE PROCESS OF REMISSION

RELATION OF REMISSION AND THE NATURE
OF THE SIN
The nature of any sin is the determining factor in the process
by which the sinner can return to God. As remission itself is an
act proper to God, the aspect of remission which is considered
here is the act by which the sinner renders himself disposed for
the remission of his sin, and the acts by which he is returned to
his sinless state. Now, the nature of venial sin is the basis for
any discussion of the remission of this sin. The points which have
been seen concerning the nature of venial sin must be constantly
present if this process is to be kept in its proper perspective. Thus,
the facts that venial sin causes no diminution of sanctifying grace
or the virtues, and that its main effect is the lessening of the
non-essential fervor of charity,1 are of constant importance. The
remission of venial sin is possible only when the sinner is in the
state of sanctifying grace and it is achieved by the act of penance
of the sinner himself. This act, its integral parts, and its necessary
conditions will be the burden of this chapter, leaving the various
means which can be utilized by the sinner in securing this remis­
sion to the next chapter.

With regard to the remission of sin in general, Saint Thomas
has this statement:
The remission of guilt ... is accomplished through a
uniting of man with God, from whom guilt separates
man in some fashion. But this separation is made in a
complete manner by mortal sin, and only in an imperfect
way by venial sin, for through mortal sin the mind is
1 De Malo, q. 7, a. 3, ad 17; Tanquerey, Adolphe, Spiritual Life, (Newman,

Westminster, 1930) no. 729.

29

30

The Remission of Venial Sin

completely turned from God, since the sinner is acting
against charity; while through venial sin man’s emotions
are held back so that they cannot promptly spring to­
wards God.2

Looking on the remission of sin as the reunion of the sinner
with God, it is evident that the position of the venial sinner is
quite different from that of the mortal sinner. This must be so
because of the infinite difference between the two forms of actual
sin.’ If, then, remission of sin is truly a reunion with God, is it
possible to speak of the remission of venial sin, since this sin
effects no separation from God? Venial sin, as has been seen, is
not sin in the full sense, but rather is called sin through analogy
with mortal sin. In the same manner, remission of venial sin is
not remission in the full sense of a complete reunion to God in
charity. It is remission by analogy with the remission of mortal
sin. As a sinful action venial sin is an inordinate conversion to a
created good. The remedying of this conversion by the elimina­
tion of the disorder is the remission of venial sin. This act of
remission implies an act of correctly ordered conversion to God,
a withdrawal of the will from its distraction, and the establishing
of a proper relation to the means to the final end. In this action
there is the return of the fervor of charity and the reunion of its
outward brilliance to the soul.'

|
j
I
j

The nature of the remissive act depends, then, on the nature
of the sin committed. Thus, there is a great difference between
the elimination of the deathly result of mortal sin and the returning of the actual fervor of charity which is lost through venial

!
j

1 S.T.,c, q. 87, a. 3, ad 17:
Dicendum quod remissio culpae ... fit per coniunctionem hominis ad
Deum, a quo aliqualiter separat culpa. Sed haec separatio perfecte quidem
fit per peccatum mortale, imperfecte autem per peccatum veniale, nam per
peccatum mortale mens omnino a Deo avertitur, utpote contra caritatem
agens; per peccatum autem veniale retardatur affectus hominis ne prompte
in Deum feratur.
See also: Noldin-Schmitt, Summa Theologiae Moralis, (26 ed., Newman,
Westminster, 1951) vol. 3, no. 240.
’ S. T., 1-2, q. 87, a. 3, in corp.; and q. 72, a. 5, ad 1.
4 Ibid., q. 89, a. 1, in corp.; also: Merkelbach, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 457.

j
J

The Process of Remission

31

sin.5 This close nexus between the nature oi sin and the nature
of the remission act will be basic to this entire discussion.

VENIAL SIN AND THE FERVOR OF CHARITY
As has been seen, the direct effect of venial sin on the soul,
the effect which is considered to be the stain of venial sin and the
guilt which must be remitted, is the diminution of the fervor of
charity. As Billuart says :

__ moreover, through this inordinate modification or de­
termination of the will with regard to some created good,
the emotions of the sinner are impeded, or retarded, so
that they cannot promptly spring towards God; and this
is known as the privation of the fervor of charity, and
it is in this that the stain of venial sin, or habitual venial
sin, is usually said to consist.’
The restoration of the fervor of charity, then, will be the ob­
ject of the act of remission of venial sin. When the lost fervor is
restored, the sin will be remitted. Now, this fervor must be un­
derstood correctly, if the object of the remissive act is to be seen
as it is.
For the present consideration it will be useful to repeat the
statement of Saint Thomas on the precise nature of this fervor:

— fervor can be understood in two ways; the first way
brings in the intensity with which the lover tends toward
the beloved, and such fervor is essential to charity, and
is not diminished through venial sin. Another manner
of speaking of the fervor of charity considers it as the
overflowing of the motion of love into the lesser facul6 S. T., 3, q. 87, a. 1, in corp.
* Billuart, op. cit., Diss. 3, art. 3:
... per hanc autem modificationem seu determinationem inordinatam vo­
luntatis circa bonum creatum, impeditur, seu, retardatur affectus ne prompte
feratur in Deum; et hoc dicitur privatio fervoris charitatis, in qua reponi
solet macula peccati venialis, seu peccatum veniale habituale...
See also: S. T., 3, q. 87, a. 2, in corp.

32

The Remission of Venial Sin
ties, so that in some way, not only the heart, but even
the flesh, rejoices in God; and this is the type of fervor
which is diminished by venial sin without any dimin­
ishing of charity.’

This overflow of the motion of love is the fervor of charity to
which reference will be made frequently below. In the teaching
of Saint Thomas, then, the purpose of the act of remission will
be the return of the lost act of fervor. This view is not that of
Scotus who equates the remission of venial sin with the fulfillment
of the temporal punishment; .. and furthermore, one can be
remitted without the other; since the guilt of venial sin incurs
only a temporal punishment, the remission of venial sin is nothing
else than the fulfillment of the temporal punishment which is
due to it.”8 This view of Scotus will explain his approach to some
of the difficulties which arise with regard to the remission of ve­
nial sin. He encounters no problem in the case of those who die
with unrepented venial sins on their souls as their sins are re­
mitted by the payment of the due punishment in Purgatory. He
goes even further, and does not require the venial sinner to be in
the state of sanctifying grace to secure the remission of his venial
sins:

— venial sin neither of itself, nor through any circum­
stance, can merit an eternal punishment, for it is of the
nature of such an offence that it receive only a temporal
’ De Malo, q. 7, a. 2, ad 17:
... fervor potest accipi dupliciter. Uno modo secundum quod importat
intensionem inclinationis amantis in amatum: et talis fervor est essentialis
caritati, et non diminuitur per veniale peccatum. Alio modo dicitur fervor
caritatis secundum quod redundat motus dilectionis etiam in inferiores
vires, ut quodammodo non solum cor, sed etiam caro exultet in Deum;
et talis fervor diminuitur per veniale peccatum absque diminutione cari­
tatis.
See also: S. T., 1-2, q. 89, a. 1, in corp.; and Tanquerey, op. cit., no. 729.
* Scotus, John Duns, Commentarium in IF libros sententiarum, d. 21, q. 1,
no. S Op. omnia, vol. 18.
...imo magis unum dimitti posse sine alio; quia, cum culpae veniali non
debeatur nisi poena temporalis, nihil aliud est venialis peccati remissio
quam solutio poenae temporalis debitae.

The Process of Remission

33

punishment according to justice; for it does not avert the
sinner from his end as does mortal sin. Nor can there be
said to be any necessary connection between mortal and
venial sin as far as their remission is concerned, neither
from a positive law of God, nor from justice; therefore,
the sinner can produce condign satisfaction for his venial
sins, even though he remain guilty of mortal sin.’
This view of venial sin is, evidently, in direct opposition to
that of Saint Thomas. The approach of Scotus seems to lack a
distinction between the condition of guilt and liability to punish­
ment. As in the case of mortal sin where the guilt of the sin must
be remitted through the infusion of sanctifying grace, so that
consequently the sinner may no longer be liable to the eternal
penalty; so also the remission of venial sin has two parts, the re­
mission of the guilt by an act of the fervor of charity, and the
remission of the temporal punishment,10 which may, or may not,
be simultaneous with the remission of the guilt. Scotus’ view
seems to divorce the effect of venial sin from the soul of the
sinner, leaving no effect save the liability to punishment. Saint
Thomas always requires a movement in the opposite direction,
that is, towards God, to secure the remission of sin.u Scotus’ point
on the lack of nexus between mortal and venial sin seems to be
unrealistic in that it ignores the fact that these two are very
definitely connected by the fact that they are both on the soul of
this person. Thus, one of the necessary conditions for the remis­
sion of venial sin is lacking, and so the venial sin can never be
remitted. If the sinner should die in this state, the punishment for
the venial sin would, through the accidental fact of its being on a
• Ibid., no. 6:
...peccato veniali neque per se, neque per accidens debetur poena aeter­
na, est enim ex natura sui talis offensa, quae punitur per temporalem
poenam, secundum iustitiam; non enim a fine avertit ut mortale. Neque
necessariam connexionem dicit cum mortali, quantum ad sui remissionem,
neque ex statuta lege Dei, neque ex iustitia; ergo peccator poterit exhibere
condignam satisfactionem pro suis venialibus, etiamsi remaneat obnoxius
mortali peccato.
“ Noldin-Schmitt, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 250.
“ S’. T,. 3, q. 87, a. 2, ad 3; and a. 3, in corp.

34

The Remission of Venial Sin

soul which lacks sanctifying grace, be everlasting. In the same
manner, a non-fatal injury, such as a broken finger, can be un­
repaired, and so remain a defect, when a person dies of cancer.
There is no intrinsic nexus between the two. Cancer should not
prevent the mending of the finger. However, the two things have
a very definite connection in the fact that they are in the same
person. The ability to mend the finger has been denied, forever,
through the fact that the cancer has halted the mending process
by killing the patient. As cancer removed the principle of life
which is necessary for all healing processes, so mortal sin re­
moves the principle of charity which is necessary for the healing
of venial sin. Saint Thomas teaches that the remission of venial
sin is achieved by the act of fervent charity on the part of the
sinner. This is impossible when the principle of charity is not
present. Now, although the opinion of Scotus is not generally held,
it does put the teaching of Saint Thomas in relief.” Following
Saint Thomas, then, all mention of remission will be centered on
the remission of guilt. The remission of the penalty due for venial
sin will be treated separately.

THE ACT OF THE PENITENT
So the act of remission of venial sin is the act of withdrawal
of the penitent’s will from the object of its inordinate attachment,
an act by which the fervor of charity, lost by his sin, is aroused.
The essential element of this withdrawal is the act of the peni­
tent himself, and this act should be treated first. This act depends
on the presence of both sanctifying and actual grace for its ef­
ficacy. The presence of both types of grace is to be presumed,
and is to be regarded as a necessary element in this entire dis­
cussion, even when it is not mentioned explicitly.
The act of the will of the penitent is sufficient for the remission
of venial sin, and moreover, there can be no remission of venial
sin without this act of the will which is simply an act of the virtue
of penance. Saint Thomas says:
“ Ibid., a. 4, in corp.; and q. 86, a. 3, in corp.; also against this view of Sco­
tos: Noldin-Schtnitt, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 241; Merkelbach, op. cit., vol. 3,
no. 4S7; Galtier, op. cit., Thesis 41; Regatillo-Zalba, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 380.

The Process of Remission

35

And so, in order that venial sin be taken away, there
is not required an infusion of grace, but any movement
of grace, or of charity, will suffice for its remission.15
This flows from the nature of venial sin, for this sinner retains
his orientation towards God through the principle of charity. The
inordinate adhesion of his will to some created thing makes him
guilty of a venial sin, and as long as this adhesion lasts, the sin
remains. When his will ends this adhesion it also ends the venial
sin. The state of venial sin consists precisely in the continued
determination of the will to the inordinate attachment,1* when
this is revoked the state of sin is revoked likewise. Mortal sin is a
different matter, for there the stain of sin consists in the habitual
privation of the principle of charity. The cessation of the state
of guilt for mortal sin requires more than a simple act of the will.
There must be an act of perfect charity, or of attrition with the
aid of a sacrament, to restore the principle of charity. Venial sin,
however, according to the more common opinion,15 is remitted by
a simple act of attrition or of fervor. Here the will has not been
turned from God in any way and there is no need for turning
back to God. Nor has this sin slowed man in his tendency toward
God, for the fervor of charity which is affected is not that essen­
tial fervor by which one tends to God, as has been seen above.

Now, if the state of venial sin consists in an actual adherence
of the will to some object in an inordinate manner, the question
arises as to whether an act of penance, that is, an act opposed
15 S. T., 3, q. 87, a. 2, in corp.:
Et ideo ad hoc quod peccatum veniale tollatur, non requiritur quod in­
fundatur aliqua habitualis gratia, sed sufficit aliquis motus gratiae vel
caritatis ad eius remissionem.
Merkelbach is explicit on this point; op. cit., vol. 3, no. 459.
14 Billuart, op. cit., Diss. 3, art. 3; Scheeben, op. cit., p. 257.
“ The sufficiency of attrition is held generally since the Council of Trent. The
usual argument being based on the “many other remedies”—as perfect con­
trition would be the only remedy if it were required. Thus: Aertnys-Damen,
op. cit., vol. 1, no. 270; Merkelbach, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 460; Galtier, op.
cit., no. 458; De Lugo, op. cit., de pen., disp. 9, s. 2, no. 29; and: Fanfani,
Doronzo, Iorio Chretien, Lehmkuhl, Heylen, Priimmer, Cappello, SabbettiBarret.

36

The Remission of Venial Sin

to the act of sin, a retractation, is necessary for its remission; or
whether a simple cessation of the act, a simple stopping of the
act with no opposed action, would be sufficient for its remission.
As will be shown below,” Saint Thomas and most other authors
demand a positive act of the will and not a mere cessation of the
act for the remission of sin. When a sacrament is received, or
whenever there is an infusion of sanctifying grace, this act of
the will, if it has not been placed as an act of preparation, will
certainly follow as a consequence. For an act of fervor which is
remissive of venial sin is the result of such an infusion of grace
into the soul of one who is capable of venial sin.1’ The evident
exception to this would come in the Sacrament of Penance with
regard to those venial sins which are confessed. For these, or at
least, for one of these, if no mortal sins are confessed or if there
is no formal sorrow for past remitted sins, the penitent must have
formal sorrow which would include a positive will act, and not
merely place no obstacle to their remission through the resultant
act of fervor. Actually, the remission takes place in the same
manner in every case, but the act of fervor can be made by the
individual himself with the help of actual grace, or it can come
as the result of an infusion of sanctifying grace. Thus the use of
all means for the remission of venial sin has this one point in
common, they all seek to arouse an act of fervent charity which
will be remissive of venial sin as an act of virtual penance, a
turning of the will from its inordinate attachment. Thus :

In a word, consequent to, and by reason of, the act by
which man has hatred of his venial sin and by which he
acts against it, God will grant condonation from without,
as long as the sinner is well disposed within.”
Venial sin is remitted by the fervor of charity alone
which includes a hatred of the sin. Although many other
“ Ibid., p. 48.
17 S. T., 3, q. 87, a. 2, in corp.
“ Galtier, op. cit., no. 550:
Uno verbo, consequenter et ratione actus quo homo peccatum suum ve­
niale odio habet atque contra illud agit, Deus dii, tamquam intrinsice bene
disposito, condonat, ab extrinsico.

The Process of Remission

37

causes are usually listed, they can all be reduced to this
one thing..
Thus the act of the will by which its complacency in its sinful
attachment is ended is essential to the remission of venial sin,
for such an act is, in reality, an act of the virtue of penance, and
from the very nature of remission there must always be present
an act of this virtue.” The type of penance required and its
qualities remain to be discussed.

QUALITIES REQUIRED IN THE ACT OF
PENANCE FOR VENIAL SIN
The act of penance which is required for the remission of venial
sin is essentially the same as that which is required for the re­
mission of mortal sin. It is fundamentally a hatred of sin and a
consequent sadness that this act, now so distasteful, is imputable
to this person. There is also the desire to undo this evil. This
desire extends to the past evil, where it can have no effect, and
to the future where this evil can be avoided. For this virtue to be
effective it must be based upon a supernatural motive. More
exactly, there is no true act of this virtue without supernatural
motivation. A purely natural motive such as shame or humilia­
tion would not of itself effect true penance. Thus the act of the
will by which venial sin is remitted must be one which has as its
basis a supernatural motive. In speaking of the remission of sin,
Saint Thomas says:
The remission of the guilt of sin . . . is accomplished
through a reunion of man to God, from whom he was
separated by the guilt of sin. But this separation is com­
plete through mortal sin, and only imperfect through
venial sin, for through mortal sin the intellect is com" Merkelbach, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 459:
Peccatum veniale remittitur solo fervore charitatis qui eius displicentiam
includit. Quamvis multae aliae causae recenseri soleant, ad hanc unam
reduci possunt ...
* S. T., 3, q. 86, a. 2, corp.; and q. 87, a. 1, corp., Doronzo, op. cit., vol. 2,
p. 96; Merkelbach, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 457.

The Remission of Venial Sin

38

pletely turned away from God, inasmuch as it acts
against charity; while through venial sin man’s emotions
are held back so that they cannot promptly spring to- .
wards God. And therefore, both types of sin are re­
mitted through penance, as in both there is a deor­
dination of man’s will through an immoderate conver­
sion to a created good; so just as the mortal sin cannot
be remitted as long as the will adheres to the sin, so
also in the case of the venial sin, for as long as the
cause remains the effect will remain.11
Granted that the act of sin, by which a man has de­
parted from the light of reason or the light of the divine
law, may cease, the man does not immediately return
to his previous state, but there is required a motion of
his will which is contrary to the sinful motion. Just as
when someone is a distance from another through a cer­
tain motion, by the mere cessation of that motion he
will not be near the other, but it will be nècessary to
come near through a contrary motion.”
" S. T., 3, q. 87, a. 1, in corp.:
Dicendum quod remissio culpae ... fit per coniunctionem hominis ad
Déum, a quo aliqualiter separat culpa. Sed haec separatio perfecte quidem
fit .per peccatum mortale, imperfecte autem per peccatum veniale, nam
per peccatum mortale mens omnino a Deo avertitur, utpote contra cari­
tatem agens; per peccatum autem veniale retardatur affectus hominis ne
prompte in Deum feratur. Et ideo utrumque peccatum per poenitentiam
quidem remittitur, quia per utrumque deordinatur voluntas hominis per
immoderatam conversionem ad bonum creatum; sicut enim peccatum
mortale remitti non potest quamdiu voluntas peccato adhaeret, ita etiam
nec peccatum veniale, quia manente causa, manet effectus.
So also; Suarez, disp. 2, s. 4, no. 5; Galtier, op. cit., no. 547; Merkelbach,
op. cit., vol. 3, no. 457; Doronzo, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 96.

” S. T., 1-2, q. 86, a. 2, in corp.:
Licet autem cesset actus peccati, quo homo discessit a lumine rationis
vel legis divinae, non tamen statim homo ad illud redit in quo fuerat;
sed requiritur aliquis motus voluntatis contrarius primo motui. Sicut si
aliquis sit distans alicui per aliquem motum, non statim cessante motu
fit eî propinquus, sed oportet quod appropinquet rediens per motum con­
trarium.

The Process of Remission

39

On the necessity of an act of penance for the remission of venial
sin Scotus seems to disagree:
... however I deny that such a one would have to have
the virtue of penance; since venial sins can be remitted
both as to guilt and to penalty, not only through the
virtue of penance, but also through an act of fervent
contemplation of God, just as a drop of water is totally
consumed by an intense flame.”

In this instance he is definitely referring to the virtue of pen­
ance, whereas in some other places” there seems to be a con­
fusion between the sacrament of penance and the virtue of
penance. However, even here it seems that he is referring to the
fact that there is no need for an act of formal penance. In this
sense Saint Thomas agrees with this statement, for he holds that
an act of the fervor of charity is virtually an act of penance.” It
is the better interpretation of Scotus’ words to suppose that he
recognizes the need for at least virtual penance, although he did
not make this distinction.
This penance which is necessary for the remission of venial sin
must be, as in the case of mortal sin, appréciative summa.” Thus
the sinner must hold that venial sin, while it is infinitely less
harmful than mortal sin, is above all other evils in creation. It
must be held to be a greater evil than any punishment which it
can incur, and, in fact, worse than the sum total of all evils out­
side of mortal sin.

Penance for venial sin must also include a purpose of amend­
ment as an effect of its hatred for sin. While in the case of mortal
” In 4, d. 17, no. 25:
. . . nego tamen, propterea debuisse habere virtutem poenitentiae; quia
venialia non solum per virtutem poenitentiae delentur quoad culpam et
poenam, sed etiam deleri possunt, et remittuntur per actum ferventem
contemplationis in Deum, sicuti gutta aquae totaliter absumitur a flamma
vehementi.
“ In 4, d. 21, q. 1, nos. 8, 9; and In 4, d. 17, no. 19.
» S. T., 3, q. 87, a. 1, ad 1.
• Council of Trent, sess. 14, cap. 4, E. S., no. 897; Doronzo, op. cit., vol. 2,
p. 96.

40

The Remission of Venial Sin

sin this intention must be absolutely universal, for the aversion
from God which is implicit in every mortal sin does not admit of
degrees, this is not true of venial sin. Venial sins lack the inner
unity of aversion from God. There are any number of created
things to which the soul can be venially attached. A venial sin
against one virtue can be remitted while the soul clings to a venial
sin against another virtue. And while mortal sin can be avoided
entirely, venial sin cannot be avoided for any great length of time
without a special privilege from God. Saint Thomas says:
Man in the state of grace can avoid each and every
mortal sin: he can also avoid each venial sin, but not all
venial sin . . . And so penance for mortal sins requires
that man propose to avoid all and every individual
mortal sin. But penance for venial sins requires that
man propose to avoid individual venial sins, but not all
venial sins, since the weakness of this life precludes this.
He should, however, have the propositum of making him­
self ready to lessen the number of venial sins; for other­
wise he would be in danger of falling back, as the desire
to move ahead, or to remove the obstacles to spiritual
progress, which venial sins are, would be lacking.”
The continual corruption of the sensuality is to be
understood as referring to the fomes which is never com- .
pletely destroyed in this life, since, though the stain of
original sin passes, its effect remains. However, this cor­
ruption of the fomes does not hinder man from using
rational will to check individual inordinate movements,
” S. T., 3, q. 87, a. 1, ad 1:
Dicendum quod homo in gratia constitutus potest vitare omnia peccata
mortalia et singula; potest etiam vitare singula peccata venialia, sed non
omnia ... Et ideo poenitentia de peccatis mortalibus requirit quod homo
proponat abstinere ab omnibus, et singulis peccatis mortalibus. Sed ad
poenitentiam peccatorum venialium requiritur quod homo proponat ab­
stinere a singulis, non tamen ab omnibus, quia hoc infirmitas huius vitae
non patitur. Debet tamen habere propositum se praeparandi ad peccata
venialia minuenda; alioquin esset ei periculum deficiendi, cum desereret
appetitum proficiendi, seu tollendi impedimenta spiritualis profectus, quae
sunt peccata venialia.

The Process of Remission

41

if he be presentment of them, for instance by turning his
thoughts to other things. Yet while he is turning his
thoughts to something else, an inordinate movement may
arise about this also . . . Consequently a man cannot
avoid all such movements, because of the aforesaid cor­
ruption; but it is enough, for the conditions of a voluntary
sin, that he be able to avoid each single one.”
In view of this frequency of venial sin there arises a question
of the required purpose of amendment. It need not, and prac­
tically cannot, be universal as in the case of mortal sin. An in­
tention to lessen the frequency of venial sins, or to avoid certain
types, or all deliberate ones, would be a sufficient purpose of
amendment. On this point there is a good treatment in Merkelbach. These things apply to the remission of venial sin in general
even though in Merkelbach they are applied to the confession of
venial sin. For the only difference between the penance required
for the remission of venial sin in general and the penance required
in the confessional is that the latter penance must be formal, and
this is necessary because the act of penance is part of the matter
for the sacrament and is not due to any exigency on the part of
venial sin in itself.

So Merkelbach:
But if only venial sins are confessed, for the validity
of the sacrament at least this is required;

a) A purpose of amendment with regard to one of the
sins confessed, namely; of avoiding a completely
similar sin in the same circumstances, or of avoiding
”. S. T., 1-2, q. 74, a. 3, ad 2:
Dicendum quod perpetua corruptio sensualitatis est intelligenda quantum
ad fomitem, qui nunquam totaliter tollitur in hac vita; transit enim pec­
catum originale reatu et remanet actu. Sed talis corruptio fomitis non
impedit quin homo rationabili voluntate possit reprimere singulos motus
inordinatos sensualitatis, si praesentiat, puta divertendo ad alia. Sed dum
homo cogitationem ad alia divertit, potest etiam circa illud aliquis inor­
dinatus motus insurgere ... Et ideo non potest homo vitare omnes huiusmodi motus, propter corruptionem praedictam; sed hoc solum sufficit
ad rationem peccati voluntarii, quod possit vitare singulos.

The Remission of Venial Sin

42

all sins, not necessarily of the same species, but those
of the same species and the same circumstances; or

b) of avoiding a certain genus of venial sins; or
c) of avoiding the more serious venial sins; or
d) of avoiding fully deliberate venial sins; or

e) of lessening the number of venial sins.
The purpose of amendment can be to avoid each in­
dividual venial sin or of avoiding all of them taken distributively, but not of avoiding all venial sins taken
together, since we can avoid individual venial sins,
whereas we cannot avoid all venial sins at once.”

So much, then, for the purpose of amendment which flows from
that hatred of sin which is sorrow. Both sorrow and the purpose
of amendment have been found necessary for the remission of
venial sin. It remains to see exactly what type of sorrow is required.

Habitual penance is certainly not sufficient for the remission
of venial sin. This inadequacy stems from the very nature of ve­
nial sin which is not opposed to the state of grace, charity, or the
other virtues. If there were an opposition between venial sin and
the virtue of penance as a habit, the act of venial sin would drive
the virtue from the soul. Saint Thomas says:
... for the remission of venial sins. That habitual dis­
pleasure, which is had from the habit of charity or from
the virtue of penance, does not suffice, for if it did then
"Merkelbach, op. cit. vol. 3, no. 488:
Quod si sola venialia declarentur, ad validitatem sacramenti requiritur
saltem a) propositum de uno veniali declarato, scilicet; .de vitando pec­
cato omnino simili in iisdem omnino circumstantiis, seu de omnibus pec­
catis, non quidem eiusdem speciei, sed eiusdem omnino conditionis: vel b)
de vitando certo genere venialium; vel c) de vitandis gravioribus; vel d)
de vitandis plene deliberatis; vel e) de minuendo numero venialium.
Propositum etiam haberi potest de vitandis singulis venialibus seu de
omnibus distributive vitandis, non autem de omnibus collective vitandis,
quia singula vitare possumus, omnia autem simul vitare nobis est im­

possible.

The Process of Remission

43

charity would not be compatible with venial sin, but this
is clearly false. Whence it follows that a certain virtual
displeasure is required; as, for example, when a person
is borne by affection toward God and divine things, in
such wise, that whatever would happen to him that would
retard him, from this motion would displease him, and
he would be sorry that he committed such an act, even
though he did not think of it.”
Thus virtual penance is adequate for the remission of venial
sin. This term, virtual, has a twofold implication here. It is op­
posed to habitual penance, and in this sense it can be looked on
as exerting an influence on the act which is performed by the
agent. This influence renders the act formally opposed to the
sinful act. So in this, virtual penance differs from habitual pen­
ance which would exert no influence upon the act. There is also
the sense of implicit penance contained in this term. So the sor­
row for the sin is contained in the act performed by the sinner
which is of its nature opposed to the act of sin. Thus any act of
fervor is an act of virtual sorrow, as in this act the act of sorrow
is implicit. This type of sorrow is, except in the confessional where
sorrow must be formal, sufficient for the remission of venial sin.

Virtual sorrow, then, from its definition must be a retractation
of the will from the sinful act. There must be a formal opposition
between the new act and the sin. This opposition can be found
whenever the new act is the opposite of the sin, as an act of
reverence is the opposite of an act of irreverence. Here the op­
position in the act itself is evident. In any other good act the agent
can make an opposition between the act and the sin through his
intention to perform the act in atonement for the sin. Here the
” S. T., 3, q. 87, a. 1, in corp.·.
... ad remissionem peccatorum venialium. Non tamen sufficit habitualis
displicentia, quae habetur per habitum caritatis vel poenitentiae virtutis,
quia sic caritas non compateretur peccatum veniale, quod patet esse fal­
sum. Unde sequitur quod requiratur quaedam virtualis displicentia; puta
cum aliquis hoc modo fertur secundum affectum in Deum et res divinas
ut quidquid ei occurrat quod eum ab hoc motu retardaret, displiceret ei,
et doleret se commisisse, etiam si de illo non cogitaret.

44

The Remission of Venial Sin

opposition is evident in his intention. Further, any act by which
the fervor of charity is increased is virtually an act of sorrow for
venial sin, as venial sin is opposed to the fervor of charity.” Now,
since any act of the fervor of charity does include a virtual act
of sorrow for venial sin, can it be held that any act of the fervor
of charity, apart from any degree of intensity, would suffice for
the remission of all the venial sins on the soul of the agent?

Here there is a difference of opinion. The basic problem is
whether a certain intensity of attrition is necessary for the re­
mission of venial sins or whether the presence of attrition is suf­
ficient to remit all venial sins. Merkelbach says:
Indeed, every even minimal act of contrition for venial
sin, if it be sincere, is a retractation of the sin__ ; venial
sin is not opposed to any determined intensity or grade
of charity, since it neither takes away nor diminishes the
habit of charity, with which it has no opposition; just
as a minimal act of perfect contrition suffices for the
remission of all mortal sins, so also a minimal act of im­
perfect contrition made with the aid of grace suffices
for the remission of all venial sins.”

There is an obvious difficulty in the comparison of the role of
perfect contrition in the remission of mortal sin and the role of
imperfect contrition in the remission of venial sin. For all mortal
sins are unified in their aversion from God and there is a formal
opposition between this aversion and an act of perfect contrition.
So when such an act is made all mortal sins are remitted. There
can be no question of some not being remitted. In the case of
venial sin, however, where there is no such unity of aversion,
imperfect contrition need not remit every venial sin. At least this
“ Ibid., ad 3; also Noldin-Schmitt, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 243.
” Merkelbach, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 460:
Etenim omnis etiam minima contritio de peccato veniali, si sit sincera est
retractio eius . . . peccatum veniale non opponitur determinatae intensitati seu gradui charitatis, quia nihil aufert nec minuit de charitatis habitu,
cui non opponitur; sicut minima contritio perfecta sufficit ad remissionem
omnium peccatorum mortalium, ita minima contritio imperfecta ex gratia
facta sufficit ad remissionem omnium venialium.

The Process of Remission

45

is not a necessary consequence of the act of imperfect contrition
as the remission of all mortal sins is a consequence of the act of
perfect contrition.

The view of Merkelbach differs from De Lugo’s,” who, granting
that venial sin consists only in a conversion to a created good,
holds that all conversions are not equal in gravity and intensity,
and so some require a greater degree of attrition than others for
their remission. This argumentation will be treated below with
reference to confession. However, for present purposes, De Lugo’s
opinion is not as far removed from that of Merkelbach as it may
appear at first glance. Certainly all venial sins are not equal.
Some conversions to created goods involve a stronger turning of
the will than others. However, for attrition there must be a re­
versal of this motion of the will. This return of the will implies
greater effort where the inordinate motion was greater. But, and
this is the important point, attrition, even the minimal attrition
of which Merkelbach speaks, is this retractation of the will. So it
can be said that in the case of the more serious venial sins, that
while a minimal attrition is sufficient for their remission, this
minimal attrition requires a greater intensity and act on the part
of the will than does minimal attrition in the case of lesser venial
sins, and this is due to the different degrees of conversion of the
will to created goods.
It would seem, then, that the answer to the question asked,
as to whether the virtual act of sorrow contained in an act of the
fervor of charity would be sufficient for the remission of all venial
sins, apart from any degree of intensity, would be yes, provided
that the will is really withdrawn from the inordinate conversion.
This seems to be the mind of Saint Thomas who mentions that
any motion of grace or of charity is sufficient for the remission
of venial sin,” as long as this motion is applied to the sin, and who
makes no stipulation as to the intensity of attrition required for
remission. With regard to the remission of venial sins through
the fervor of charity, this passage from Saint Thomas is of in­
terest:
” De Lugo, op. cit., disp. 9, s. 2, no. 39.
“ S. T., 3, q. 87, a. 2, in corp.

46

The Remission of Venial Sin
Although those who are withdrawn from the care of
temporal things sometimes sin venially, yet they commit
but slight venial sins, and very frequently they are
cleansed by the fervor of charity. Hence they do not
build up venial sins, because these do not remain long
in them. But the venial sins of those who are busy about
earthly things remain longer, because they are unable to
have such frequent recourse to the fervor of charity in
order to remove them."

SANCTIFYING GRACE AND THE REMISSION
OF VENIAL SIN
For the remission of venial sin, sanctifying grace must be
present in the soul. In this requirement venial sin stands alone,
for it is the only sin which can exist in the soul along with grace.
It has no effect on grace or charity but only upon the non-essen­
tial fervor of charity. Now, in like manner, the remission of venial
sin has no direct effect on the habit of charity or on sanctifying
grace, but is merely a return of the previously lost fervor of
charity. If the soul lacks sanctifying grace and the habit of
charity, it is impossible to return the fervor of charity, as this
is related to the habit of charity as an accident to a substance.
With regard to the necessity for the presence of sanctifying grace
Saint Thomas says; “He who is in mortal sin lacks the grace of
God. Therefore no venial sin will be forgiven him.”" And; “Mor­
tal sin excludes completely habitual grace, without which no sin
is remitted whether venial or mortal.”*1
K S. T., 1-2, q. 89, a. 2, ad 3:
Dicendum quod illi qui sunt abstracti a cura temporalium rerum, etsi
aliquando venialiter peccent, tamen levia peccata venialia committunt et
frequentissime per fervorem caritatis purgantur. Unde tales non super­
aedificant venialia, quia in eis modicum manent. Sed peccata venialia
ipsorum qui circa terrena occupantur, diutius manent, quia non ita fre­
quenter recurrere possunt ad huiusmodi peccata venialia delenda per cari­
tatis fervorem.
“ S. T., 3, q. 87, a. 2, in corp.-. “Ule autem qui est in peccato mortali, caret
gratia Dei. Unde nullam veniale sibi remittitur.”
” Ibid., a. 4, ad 3: “Sed peccatum mortale excludit totaliter habitum gratiae,
sine quo nullum peccatum mortale vel veniale remittitur.”

The Process of Remission

47

Now, this last statement of Saint Thomas has this meaning.
There is remission of mortal sin through the infusion of sanc­
tifying grace, for there is formal opposition between grace and
mortal sin. The two cannot exist together. The relation of venial
sin to habitual grace is different. The two are compatible and so
can exist together. Every infusion of sanctifying grace can remit
venial sins, although it will not necessarily remit all of them,
but not for the same reason that such an infusion of grace remits
mortal sin. The infusion of grace causes an act of fervor and this
act in turn is formally opposed to venial sin, and so through this
act which is consequent to the infusion of grace, the venial sins
are remitted. Such an infusion of grace is not necessary for the
remission of venial sins as it is in the case of mortal sin. As Saint
Thomas says; “For the removal of venial sin, no infusion of
habitual grace is required, but rather, any motion of grace or
charity is sufficient for its remission.” “
In the case of remission of mortal and venial sin the remission
is not, then, simultaneous. The venial sins cannot be remitted until
habitual grace is present in the soul. So the infusion of sancti­
fying grace takes place, and this effects immediately, through its
formal opposition to the state of mortal sin, the remission of the
mortal sin. Then, as a consequence of the infusion of grace, there
is an act of fervor, which can remit venial sin. There can also be
the causality of the act of attrition, or contrition, on the part of
the sinner for the venial sins. While the sinner lacked habitual
grace this cause lacked the necessary condition for its operation.
By the infusion of habitual grace this cause was allowed to become
operative. It should be noted that it is possible for the sinner to
return to the state of habitual grace and to retain his attachment
to his venial sins and thus to have none of them remitted. There
is no necessary relation between venial sin and mortal sin, nor
between venial sin and habitual grace. However, the presence of
habitual grace is a necessary condition for the remission of venial
sin.
“ Ibid., a. 2, in corp.: “Et ideo ad hoc quod peccatum veniale tollatur, non
requiritur quod infundatur aliqua habitualis gratia, sed sufficit aliquis motus
gratiae vel caritatis ad eius remissionem.” Also: Galtier, op. cit., no 550;
Merkelbach, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 458; Scotus, In 4, d. 21, q. 1, no. 1.

48

The Remission of Venial Sin

Every increase of sanctifying grace can, then, remit venial sin,
It does this not of itself but mediately through the act of fervor
which it arouses in the sinner. Thus Saint Thomas says:

Since, however, in all of those who have the use of
free will, and it is these alone who can commit venial
sin, an infusion of grace cannot happen without an actual
motion of the free will with regard to God and to sin;
therefore whenever there is a new infusion of grace ve­
nial sins are remitted.”
So the act of the penitent is the immediate cause of the re­
mission of venial sin when there is an infusion of grace. There is
no formal opposition between the infused grace and the venial
sin so the grace would have no more effect on the venial sin than
the venial sin had on the state of grace if it were not for the act
of the will which is the result of the infusion of grace. Between
this act and venial sin there is formal opposition, and so through
this act venial sin can be remitted. This fact will be of great
import when the remission of venial sin through the sacraments
is discussed. For the sacraments confer sanctifying grace and
they effect the remission of venial sin through the resultant act
of fervor. So Billuart says:

I suppose, before all else, that neither the sacraments,
nor the sacramentels, remit venial sin immediately, but
only mediately through the act of virtual penance which
they can arouse through their special aids . . . And the
reason for this is that since venial sin consists in neither
a privation of grace or of charity, but of its aptitude for
fervor, then the sacraments and the sacramentals cannot
take venial sin away in any other way than by causing
or obtaining supernatural aids by which man can elicit
acts of fervent charity or penance, so that through these
“ Ibid.·.
Quia tamen in habentibus usum liberi arbitrii, in quibus solis possunt esse
venialia peccata, non contingit esse infusionem gratiae sine actuali motu
liberi arbitrii in Deum et in peccatum; ideo quandocumque de novo gra­
tia infunditur, peccata venialia remittuntur.

The Process of Remission

49

acts the venial sins will be formally or virtually retracted;
for no privation can be eliminated save through the
placing of an opposed form."
And in the same matter Merkelbach says:

Venial sin is remitted by the fervor of charity alone
which includes a displeasure with the sin. Although many
other causes are customarily listed; they can all be re­
duced to this one, since they are only means for the
arousing of an act of fervor, and they do not immediate­
ly remit the sin, but only mediately through the act of
virtual penance."
On this important matter both of these authors are but re­
flecting the teaching of Saint Thomas:

... through the fervor of charity venial sins are remitted;
and so whatever can arouse the fervor of charity can
cause the remission of venial sins."

And according to Saint Thomas no sacrament was instituted for
the prime purpose of remitting venial sin for this same reason:
" Billuart, op. cit., Diss. 2, art. 2, no. 3:
Suppono ante omnia, neque sacramenta, neque sacramentalia, remittere
peccata venialia immediate, sed mediante tantum actu virtualis poeniten­
tiae, ad quem per auxilia specialia excitant ... Et ratio est, quia cum
venialia consistant in privatione non gratiae et caritatis, sed eius fervoris
habilitatis, sacramenta et sacramentalia non possunt ea aliter tollere, quam
causando seu obtinendo auxilia supematuralia quibus homo applicetur ad
eliciendos actus ferventes caritatis vel poenitentiae, per quos peccata vel
formaliter vel virtualiter retractantur; nulla enim privatio potest tolli nisi
. per positionem formae oppositae.
“ Merkelbach, op. cit., vol. 3, no 459:
Peccatum veniale remittitur solo fervore charitatis qui eius displicentiam
includit. Quamvis multae aliae causae recenseri soleant; ad hanc unam
reduci possunt, quia non sunt nisi media ad fervorem charitatis procuran­
dum, ac non immediate remittunt sed mediante actu virtualis poeniten­
tiae.
“ De Malo, q. 7, a. 12, in corp.: “. . , per fervorem caritatis peccata venialia
remittuntur; ideo quaecumque nata sunt excitare fervorem caritatis possunt
causare remissionem peccatorum venialium.”

50

The Remission of Venial Sin

For the remission of venial sin an infusion of grace
is not required. So, since in every sacrament of the NewLaw there is an infusion of grace, no sacrament of the
New Law was instituted directly against venial sin, which
can be removed by any of the sacramentals, for example
by holy water and by others in the same manner."
The fact that venial sin is remitted mediately, that is, through
the act of fervor which is aroused by the infusion of grace from
the sacraments, does not mean that this effect is not a result of
the sacramental action itself. Due to the nature of venial sin,
which is compatible with sanctifying grace, and the nature of the
sacraments, which were instituted to confer grace, the remission
of venial sin in the sacraments must be mediate. The act of fervor,
or virtual sorrow, which is a result of the conferred grace is the
immediate cause of remission. Yet the act of fervor is an effect
of the sacrament and so is the remission of the venial sin.
That this seems to make all of the sacraments alike in the re­
mission of venial sin is a valid observation. Limiting the state­
ment to what has been said, and to the remission of the guilt of
venial sin, it is true. All sacraments are alike in the conferral of
grace, and every conferral of grace results in the remission of
venial sin." This matter will be discussed in full in the following
chapter and the various opinions will be given on the role of the
various sacraments in the remission of venial sin.

COMPARISON OF REMISSION OF MORTAL
AND VENIAL SIN
In order to set the remission of venial sin in clear relief it will
be helpful to compare it with the remission of mortal sin. Be« S. T., 3, q. 65, a. 1, ad 8:
Dicendum quod ad deletionem venialis peccati non requiritur infusio
gratiae. Unde cum in quolibet sacramento novae legis gratia infundatur,
nullum sacramentum novae legis instituitur directe contra venialia, quod
tollitur per quaedam sacramentalia, puta per aquam benedictam et alia
huiusmodi.
“ Merkelbach, of. cit., vol. 3, no. 459, 1; See, for contrary opinion, NoldinSchmitt, of. cit., vol. 3, no. 244, b.

j
!

The Process of Remission

51

cause there is such a great difference between the natures of the
two types of sin, their remission will also be very different. The
basic difference is the presence of sanctifying grace. Venial sin
cannot be remitted unless the sinner has habitual grace and so
is capable of an act of fervent charity; whereas the presence of
habitual grace itself is remissive of mortal sin. Mortal sin can be
remitted immediately by the sacraments, and two of the sacra­
ments have the remission of mortal sin as their principal effect.
Venial sin can be remitted only mediately by the sacraments, and
no sacrament was instituted for the primary purpose of remitting
venial sin.
With regard to the act of penance itself, in the remission of
mortal sin the motive for the act of penance is of prime impor­
tance. If the act is one of perfect contrition it will, of itself, remit
all mortal sins. An act of attrition will remit mortal sin only with
a sacrament. As for the venial sin, at least in the more common
opinion," the act of penance can be either contrition or attrition.
The act need only be a true act of penance, a true retractation of
the will, for the remission of venial sin.

Every act of the fervor of charity is an act of virtual penance.
In like manner, every act of attrition which is remissive of venial
sin, and this demands the presence of sanctifying grace, is vir­
tually an act of fervor of charity. Since venial sin involves no
aversion from God, the act by which it is remitted need not be
an act of conversion to God but rather an act of acceleration of
the movement of the affections toward God. Now, since the act
of venial sin is a diminution of the fervor of charity caused by an
act of conversion to a created thing, the act of hatred and sorrow
for this conversion, an act which reverses the movement of the
will, involves an increase in the fervor of charity, and so is vir­
tually an act of fervor. This is also evident in the fact that it is
only an act of fervor which is formally opposed to venial sin, and
so it is only through this act that venial sin is removed from the
soul. Now attrition is sufficient for the removal of venial sin. So
this act of attrition must be virtually an act of fervor to achieve
its effect.
* See note no. 15 on this chapter for list of authors.

52

The Remission of Venial Sin

Venial sins are essentially conversions to created goods. They
are as unrelated as are their objects. Unlike mortal sins which
have an internal nexus in their common aversion from God and
destruction of the principle of charity, they have no inner bond.
So one venial sin can be remitted while others are not; whereas
the remission of mortal sin requires the total remission of all
mortal sins. Otherwise none are remitted.

,

The means to be used for the remission of mortal sin are clearly
defined. After Baptism they can be limited to the Sacrament of
Penance and an act of perfect contrition with a desire, at least
implicit, for confession. Mortal sin may be remitted, per accidens,
by the reception of a sacrament of the living with attrition and
good faith. The means which is, per se, obligatory, is the Sacrament of Penance. Venial sins need not be confessed, and any­
thing which can arouse an act of fervor in the venial sinner is an
apt means for the remission of venial sin.

;

!*
I
I

>

!

•
,!
ί
J
$
J;
;
i
;
j
î

i
;
i'

k

Since the state of mortal sin renders the sinner liable to everlasting punishment there is an obligation to repent for mortal
sin. This obligation is an affirmative precept and as such it would
bind at certain times, such as in danger of death or on the verge
of perpetual insanity. There is no such obligation to repent for
venial sin. Venial sin cannot cause the loss of everlasting happiness, nor can it lessen this reward, so there is no danger to salvation from non-repentance as there is in mortal sin. In fact,
venial sin can be remitted after death, an element which demonstrates the absence of any obligation to repent at a particular
time, and which also shows the great difference between mortal
and venial sin.
'

■

-

■

·

'

REMISSION OF VENIAL SIN AFTER DEATH
The case in point is that of the soul which has habitual grace
and passes from this life with unrepented venial sin on it. Now,
venial sin does not deserve an everlasting punishment nor should
it deprive the soul of everlasting happiness. However, the soul
cannot enter heaven as long as it retains the guilt of sin. In some
manner, then, this guilt must be remitted.

!
!
!
J
I

;

The Process of Remission

53

Here the theory of Scotus with regard to venial sin would answer the difficulty very nicely:

__ venial sins are expiated in so far as their guilt is
concerned, (if any soul of the just should remain guilty
of venial sin), through the fire of Purgatory. For it
seems to me that the remission of the guilt of venial sin
is nothing else than the payment of the punishment due
to it. For once the act has passed, the guilt which re­
mains is nothing else than liability to a certain penalty:
this guilt for venial sin is only for a temporal punish­
ment . . . therefore when the penalty is fulfdled through
the fire of Purgatory for venial sins, by this very fact
the venial sins are remitted and entirely expiated as
regards guilt."

In his De Malo Saint Thomas gives a different opinion:
And so it should be held that venial sins are re­
mitted, even as to guilt, after this life, in the same man­
ner in which they are remitted in this life; namely,
through an act of charity towards God, an act opposed
to the venial sin committed in this life."
These two solutions follow the views of their authors on the
nature of venial sin. Following the opinion of Saint Thomas there
is nothing to prevent the remission of venial sin in this manner.
This is not an essential change in the condition of the deceased
“ Scotiis, In 4, d. 21, q. 1, no. 6:
. . . per ignem Purgatorium expiari venialia (si quibus obnoxiae fuerint
iustorum animae) quoad culpam. Nam mihi non aliud videtur esse culpae
venialis dimissio et expiatio quam solutio poenae temporalis debitae illi.
Post actum enim transeuntem, culpa quae manet nihil aliud est, nisi
reatus ad poenam debitam: iste autem reatus venialis non est nisi ad
poenam temporalem . . . igitur persoluta poena temporali per ignem Pur­
gatorium pro venialibus, ex hoc ipsa venialia dimissa sunt atque penitus
expiata quoad culpam.
See: De Lugo, of. cit., disp. 9, sect. 2, no. 34.
" De Malo, q. 7, a. 12, in corp.: “Et ideo oportet dicere, quod venialia re­
mittuntur eis post hanc vitam etiam quantum ad culpam eo modo quo
remittuntur in hac vita; scilicet, per actum caritatis in Deum, repugnantem
venialibus in hac vita commissis.”

54

The Remission of Venial Sin

and it is not a meritorious act. There is no need of an infusion of
grace, but simply an act of fervor coming from the habitual charity
already possessed by the soul, an act which would be made in the
first moment after death. This opinion is preferable as it retains
the distinction between the guilt and the liability to punishment
which comes from venial sin.
REMISSION OF THE TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT
FOR VENIAL SIN

The matter of the temporal punishment due to venial sin has
been separated from the treatment of the remission of the sin
itself, as the guilt and the penalty are separate subjects. It is the
guilt of sin which renders the sinner liable to punishment. Thus
Saint Thomas:
Further, a just punishment may be inflicted either by
God or by man; and hence the punishment itself is the
effect of sin, not directly, but dispositively. Sin, however,
makes man deserving of punishment, and that is an evil
... Consequently the debt of punishment is considered
to be directly the effect of sin."

The liability to temporal punishment, which is the only type
of punishment due for venial sin," can last after the guilt has
been remitted. Thus:

When the stain is removed, the wound of sin is healed
as regards the will. But punishment is still requisite in
order that the other powers of the soul be healed, since
they were disordered by the sin committed. In other
words, the punishment is required so that the disorder
may be remedied by the contrary of that which caused
it. Moreover, punishment is required in order to restore
“ S. T., 1-2, q. 87, a. 1, ad 2:
Dicendum quod poena quidem iusta esse potest a Deo, et ab homine in­
flicta; unde ipsa poena non est effectus peccati directe, sed solum dispo­
sitive. Sed peccatum facit hominem esse reum poenae quod est malum
. . . Unde reatus poenae directe ponitur effectus peccati.
" Ibid., a. 3, in corp.; and a. 5, in corp.

The Process of Remission

S5

the equality of justice, and to remove the scandal given
to others, so that those that were scandalized at the sin
may be edified by the punishment..

This temporal punishment can be remitted with the guilt of
sin. The same act by which the will turns from venial sin may
gain remission of the temporal punishment. Now, while this can
be so, and would often seem to be the case, especially when the
venial sin is remitted by an intense act of fervor, or by contrition,
or attrition based on high motives; there can be no certainty that
the temporal punishment was remitted with the guilt of the sin.
However, until the guilt of the sin is remitted, the temporal pun­
ishment cannot be remitted, for it is as a result of this guilt that
there is liability to punishment and this effect will remain as long
as the cause remains.
The remission of the temporal punishment due to venial sin
which has been remitted is the same as the remission of the tem­
poral punishment due to mortal sin which has been remitted. The
same means can be used to achieve the remission of both.
The reception of any of the sacraments with the conse­
quent increase in grace is an act remissive of temporal punish­
ment since it is a meritorious act. In particular the reception of
the Sacrament of Penance is useful for this purpose, since through
the sacramental satisfaction which is a part of this sacrament,
temporal punishment is remitted in proportion to the dispositions
of the recipient.

Apart from the sacraments any salutary act can be applied for
the remission of this punishment.51 Such acts must be free, or
freely accepted, they must be morally good, and the agent must
be in the state of grace, and be in this life.
“ Ibid., a. 6, ad 3:
Dicendum quod remota macula, sanatum est vulnus peccati quantum ad
voluntatem. Requiritur autem adhuc poena ad sanationem aliarum virium
animae, quae per peccatum praecedens deordinatae fuerunt; ut scilicet per
contraria curentur. Requiritur etiam ad restituendam aequalitatem iustitiae, et ad amovendum scandalum aliorum, ut aedificentur in poena qui
sunt scandalizati culpa ...
“ Council of Trent, r«r. 14, cap. 8, 9, de poen.; E. S., nos. 904, 90S, 906.

56

The Remission of Venial Sin

In addition to the sacraments and good acts which depend
entirely on the effort of the penitent for their effect, there are
indulgenced acts. The concept of indulgence is concisely defined
in the Code of Canon Law:

A remission, before God, of the temporal punishment
due to sins already remitted with respect to their guilt,
which the ecclesiastical authority, drawing from the
treasure of the Church, grants to the living after the
manner of absolution, and to the dead after the manner
/ of suffrage.”

\ These indulgences, then, are an application, in payment for
the temporal punishment due to this penitent, of some of the
satisfactions which belong to the spiritual treasury of the Church.
These indulgences are usually attached by the Church to some
good act. This act, then, becomes the condition on which the ap­
plication of the indulgence depends. The stated requirements for
the indulgence must be strictly fulfilled. These indulgences are
granted in virtue of the jurisdiction of the church, and since this
jurisdiction does not extend to the dead, indulgences can be ap­
plied to them only after the manner of a suffrage, or request.^

In the life after death, the temporal punishment due to sin is
fulfilled in Purgatory.” Here, by the willing endurance of the ex­
piatory suffering imposed by God, the soul atones for the tem­
poral punishment which was not remitted during this time on
earth. No merit can be gained by this suffering as the time of
merit ended with death. The souls which are in this state of
suffering can be helped by the prayers and actions of those who
are still on earth and by the indulgences gained by them and ap­
plied for the souls in Purgatory.
In summary of the discussion thus far, it can be stated that the
remissive act consists in the retractation of the will from the sinful
“ Codex luris Canonici, Canon no. 911:
Omnes magni faciant indulgentias seu remissionem coram Deo poenae
temporalis debitae pro peccatis, ad culpam quod attinet iam deletis, quam
ecclesiastica auctoritas ex thesauro Ecclesiae concedit pro vivis per modum
absolutionis, pro defunctis per modum suffragii.
" Council of Trent, sets. 25, Decretum de purgatorio; E. S., no. 983.

The Process of Remission

57

motion and the recovery thereby of the lost act of the fervor of
charity. This act of the will, since it is an act of virtual penance,
must have a supernatural motivation. No infusion of sanctifying
grace is necessary for the remission of venial sin, but as a result
of every infusion of grace there is an act of fervor which can be
remissive of venial sin, so that every infusion of grace can effect
a remission of venial sin. Since there is no formal opposition be­
tween grace and venial sin, it follows that the sacraments, which
were instituted to confer grace, were not instituted for the prime
purpose of remitting venial sins. This applies to the sacraments
in general and to each sacrament in particular. However, since
each sacrament confers grace, and as a result of the infusion of
grace venial sin can be remitted, then every sacrament can effect the
remission of venial sin. And as all the sacraments are alike in the
conferral of grace, all are alike in the remission of the guilt of
venial sin, although some may have special efficacy for the re­
mission of the temporal punishment, and by their sacramental
grace give a special aid for the prevention of a recurrence of sin
and the prevention of more serious sin.

The role of the sacraments and the other means which are
available for the remission of venial sin will be treated in the next
chapter. It is as a basis for this that the precise object to be
achieved by these means, the act of the penitent by which his sin
is remitted, has been sought out. With this object in view, it is
possible to judge the effectiveness of the various means and their
relative importance for the remission of venial sin.

1' ■
’ î;:i

CHAPTER HI

REMEDIES FOR VENIAL SIN

The Council of Trent has this statement on the remission of
venial sin:
As for venial sins, those sins by which we are not cut
off from the grace of God, and into which we fall more
frequently; now while rightly, and profitably, and with­
out any presumption, these can be told in confession,
as is evident from the practice of pious individuals; it
is also possible not to mention them in confession with­
out any blame, and to atone for them by the use of
many other remedies.1
It is from this passage that the division of the matter for this
section on the remedies for venial sin has been taken. The “many
other remedies” will be treated first. In these are included extrasacramental means and all of the sacraments with the exception
of Penance. Then Penance, because of its special power and its
special problems with regard to venial sin, will be treated sep­
arately.

Preliminary to the discussion of individual remedies and the
role they play in the remission of venial sin, it would be well in
summary fashion to consider the role of all remedies for venial
sin in general. As has been seen above,’ the purpose of any
remedy for venial sin is to assist the sinner in eliciting an act of
fervor. This act of fervor is the only entity which is formally op­
posed to venial sin, and as such it is immediately remissive of
1 Council of Trent, Sessio 14, Cap. S, de confessione; E. S. no. 899.
Nam venialia, quibus a gratia Dei non excludimur et in quae frequentius
labimur, quamquam recte et utiliter citraque omnem praesumptionem in
confessione dicantur, quod piorum hominum usus demonstrat: taceri tamen
citra culpam multisque aliis remediis expiari possunt.
’ Chapter 2; see also: Merkelbach, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 460.

■Mi

60

The Remission of Venial Sin

venial sin. All of the other means which effect the remission of venial
sin, then, do so mediately,’ that is, through the medium of an
act of fervor. Now, it is possible for the sinner to elicit an act of
fervor without recourse to any remedy, and in such a case the
venial sin would be remitted without any dependence upon an
external remedy. So, just as the sinner is free to choose any
remedy from the many others which are available, he is also free
to use one of these remedies or not.

In considering these remedies it should be remembered that
there is no one which was instituted principally for the purpose
of remitting venial sin.‘ This point will be treated below especially
with regard to the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. Also, any thing,
or act, which aids the sinner to elicit an act of fervor can be con­
sidered a means for the remission of venial sin, although all such
means are certainly not equal in efficacy.

“MULTISQUE ALIIS REMEDIIS”
SACRAMENTAL MEANS FOR THE REMISSION
OF VENIAL SIN

In the opinion of Saint Thomas all of the sacraments remit
venial sin. Thus:

And so there are three ways in which the remission of
venial sin can be caused. The first way is through the
infusion of grace, since through the infusion of grace
venial sin is taken away, as was stated above. [And so
for the remission of venial sin an infusion of habitual grace
is not required, but any motion of grace or charity will
suffice for their remission. Since, however, in those who
• Chapter 2, p. 59; see also: Billuart, op. cit., Diss. 2, art. 2, no. 3; Merkel­
bach, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 459; Doronzo, Emmanuel, O.M.I., De Eucharistia
(Bruce, Milwaukee, 1947) vol. 1, p. 468; Saint Thomas, S. T., 3, q. 87,
a. 3, ad 1; q. 65, a. 1, ad 8; De Malo, q. 7, a. 8, in corp.; Saint Bonaven­
ture, Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences, dist. 23, a. 1, q. 2.
4 Saint Thomas, S. T., 3, q. 65, a. 1, ad 8; Suarez, Disp. 22, sect. 8, a. 1.

Mm·

Remedies for Venial Sin

61

have the use of reason, and these alone can be guilty
of venial sin, there cannot be an infusion of grace with­
out a motion of the free will with reference to God and
to sin; therefore whenever there is a new infusion of
grace, venial sins are remitted. S.T. 3, q. 87, a. 2, corp.]
And in this manner venial sins are remitted through the
Eucharist, and Extreme Unction, and universally through
all of the sacraments of the New Law in which grace
is conferred.6
While this opinion of Saint Thomas is, in the words of Cap­
pello, "valde probabilis” ’ both from the authority of Saint Thomas
and the reasoning on which it is based, the note of certain with
regard to the remission of venial sins is reserved for Baptism,
Penance, Extreme Unction, and the Eucharist. The remaining
three sacraments are not mentioned in authoritative statements
as having this power, nor is such a power necessary for the ful­
fillment of their established ends. Thus Lugo; “With regard to
the other three sacraments, Confirmation, Orders, and Matri­
mony, there is a major difficulty; as it is not clear how, from
their institution and their signification they have received the
6 Saint Thomas, S. T., 3, q. 87, a. 3, in corp.·.
Et ideo triplici ratione aliqua causant remissionem venialium peccatorum.
Uno modo, inquantum in eis infunditur gratia, quia per infusionem gratiae
tolluntur venialia peccata, ut supra dictum est. [Et ideo ad hoc quod pec­
catum veniale tollatur, non requiritur quod infundatur aliqua habitualis
gratia, sed sufficit aliquis motus gratiae vel caritatis ad eius remissionem.
Quia tamen in habentibus usum liberi arbitrii, in quibus solis possunt
esse venialia peccata, non contingit esse infusionem gratiae sine actuali
motu liberi arbitrii in Deum et in peccatum; ideo quandocumque de novo
gratia infunditur, peccata venialia remittuntur. S. T., 3 q) 87, a. 2, in
corp.] Et hoc modo per Eucharistiam et extremam unctionem, et uni­
versaliter per omnia sacramenta novae legis, in quibus confertur gratia,
peccata venialia remittuntur.

* Cappello, Felix, S.J., De Sacramentis (ed. 5, Marietti, Rome, 1947) vol. 2,
no. 96. See also: Merkelbach op. cit., vol. 3, no. 459; Heylen, V., De Poeni­
tentia (ed. 8, Dessain, Mechlin, 1946) p. 27; Fanfani, Ludovicus, O.P.,
Manuale Therico-Practicum Theologiae Moralis (ed. 1, Ferrari, Rome, 1950)
vol. 1, no. 334; Gonzalez, S., S.J., De Poenitentia, no. 157, in Sacrae Theo­
logiae Summa, vol. 4 (BA.C., Madrid, 1953).

62

The Remission of Venial Sin

power to remit venial sins.’” In this same passage Lugo grants tbe
fact that the opinion of Saint Thomas is commonly held by the­
ologians.

For particular consideration here the Sacraments of Extreme
Unction and Eucharist will be of importance, and they will be
treated separately and in that order. The Sacrament of Baptism
offers no special problem. It has a special efficacy with regard
to the remission of venial as well as mortal sins. In the Decree
for the Armenians this effect is mentioned; “The effect of this
sacrament is the remission of the entire guilt of both original and
actual sin, and of all the penalties which, are due because of this
guilt.’” So, not only the venial sins themselves, but also the tem­
poral punishments which are their due, are remitted in full by this
sacrament. In the reception of this sacrament the infusion of sanc­
tifying grace would have to precede the remission of venial sins.
The act of fervor consequent upon this infusion would achieve
the remission of venial sins. This remission is still an effect which
flows from the intrinsic power of the sacrament.’ The infusion of
sanctifying grace is an effect of this sacrament and this infusion,
in turn, arouses the act of fervor which is opposed to venial sin.
So the sacrament causes the remission of venial sin, and does this
from its own power, even though it achieves this effect mediate­
ly.” This remission of venial sin in Baptism, as in all other cases,
requires the presence of sorrow on the part of the sinner. If the
sinner adheres to and continues in his venial sin, it is not re­
mitted. This continuance in venial sin would not be an impedi­
ment to the sacrament. It would not prevent the infusion of
sanctifying grace. The only effect, apart from the reception of a
’ De Lugo, John, S.J., Disputationes Scholasticae et Morales (ed. nov., Vives,
Paris, 1892) vol. 4, De Poen., disp. 9, sec. 3, no. 48:
De aliis tribus sacramentis, confirmatione, ordine, et matrimonio est
major difficultas; quia non apparet, quomodo ex eorum institutione, et
significatione colligatur iste effectus tollendi venialia.
’ Council of Florence, Decree for the Armenians, E. S., no. 696:
Huius sacramenti effectus est remissio omnis culpae originalis et actualis,
omnis quoque poenae, quae pro ipsa culpa debetur.
• That is, ex opere operato.
10 See Billuart, op. cit., Diss. 2, a. 2, no. 3.

;

'
i

i
j

Remedies for Venial Sin

63

smaller measure of grace because of the less than perfect dis­
position of the recipient, is the non-remission of the venial sin.
The incidental question arises as to how this sin will be remitted.
Certainly this sin committed before Baptism is not matter for the
Sacrament of Penance. It would seem, then, that this sin can be
remitted by any means save Penance. Its remission could be ef­
fected through an act of fervor, or even through the reviviscence,
secundum quid, of the Sacrament of Baptism.
EXTREME UNCTION AS A REMEDY FOR VENIAL SIN
Furthermore, the thing signified and the effect of this
sacrament are explained in these words: “And the prayer
of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall
raise him up, and if he be in sins they shall be forgiven
him.” {James 5:15) For the thing signified is the grace of
the Holy Spirit, whose anointing wipes away sins, if
there be any to be expiated, and the remains of sin, and
relieves and strengthens the soul of the sick person by
exciting in him great confidence in divine mercy, sup­
ported by which the sick person bears more lightly the
miseries and pains of his illness, and resists more easily
the temptations of the evil spirit who “lies in wait for
his heel” (Gen. 1:15), and sometimes attains bodily
health, when it is expedient for the salvation of the soul.11

This chapter from the Council of Trent sums up the effects of
the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. Important to our considera­
tion is the certainty that this sacrament can remit sin. This effect
11 Council of Trent, Sess. 14, De sacramento extremae unctionis, caf. 2, E. S.,
909:
Res porro et effectus huius sacramenti illis verbis explicatur: ‘Et oratio
fidei salvabit infirmum, et alleviabit eum Dominus; et, si in peccatis sit,
dimittentur ei? (James 5:15) Res etenim haec gratia est Spiritus Sancti,
cuius unctio delicta, si quae sint adhuc expianda, ac peccati reliquias
abstergit, et aegroti animam alleviat et confirmat, magnam in eo divinae
misericordiae fiduciam excitando, qua infirmus sublevatur et morbi in­
commoda ac laboris levius fert, et tentationibus daemonis ‘calcaneo insidiantis’ (Gea. 3:15) facilius resistit, et sanitatem corporis interdum, ubi
saluti animae expedierit, consequitur.

64

The Remission of Venial Sin

is mentioned in the text of the Epistle of James which refers to
this sacrament and in the Council of Trent, both in the quoted
chapter and in the canons on this sacrament which declare ana­
thema those who deny this effect of the sacrament.13 Now, for
our present purpose this power to remit sin is of interest with
regard to venial sin.

1

In his discussion of this sacrament Saint Thomas has this
passage:
There are some who hold that this sacrament was instituted principally for the remission of venial sin; be­
cause it is impossible, as long as this life is being lived,
for one to be perfectly free from such sins; and so this
sacrament of the dying is specially established to free
from venial sin. But this does not seem to be true. Indeed
penance suffices, even during life, for the remission of
the guilt of venial sin. The fact that venial sin cannot be
avoided after the act of penance, does not take away
the effect of the preceding act of penance.”

'

Saint Thomas has reference here to the Franciscan school in
general, for their opinion on the spiritual effect of this sacrament
was that it was intended primarily for the final remission of
venial sins. In this opinion they were following the view of Saint
Bonaventure in his Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences'.
“Extreme Unction is principally for the cure and alleviation of
spiritual infirmity, namely, venial sin, and secondarily for the cure
and alleviation of bodily infirmity.”14 Now, Saint Bonaventure

i

J
i
J

I

“ Efistle of Saint James 5:15; E. S., no. 909, and no. 927.
33 Thomas Aquinas, Suffi., q. 30, a. 1, in corf.·.
Quidam vero dicunt quod principaliter est institutum contra veniale; quod
quidem non potest, dum haec vita agitur, perfecte curari; et ideo sacra­
mentum exeuntium specialiter contra veniale ordinatur. Sed hoc non videtur verum. Quia poenitentia sufficienter, etiam in vita, delet venialia quoad

f
g
Ï

culpam. Quod autem non potest evitari post peractam poenitentiam, non
aufert praecedenti poenitentiae suum effectum.
14 Saint Bonaventure, of. cit., In 4, dist. 23, a. 1, q. 1:

j
j

Extrema unctio principaliter est ad curationem et alleviationem infirmitatis spiritualis, scilicet, peccati venialis, et per accidens ad curationem
et alleviationem infirmitatis corporalis.

1

Remedies for Venial Sin

65

admits the fact that every sacrament has as an effect the re­
mission of venial sin, but the point of his opinion is that at the
time of death there is a special situation, as this will be the end
of the commission of venial sins. Thus he says; “However, it
should be noted that venial sin can be considered in two ways,
either as it is on the soul of the sinner while living his life, or as
it is on the soul of the sinner at the moment of death.”1’ It is for
venial sin in this second case that the sacrament was intended,
so that the soul will be cleared of the obstacles which would retard
it from the enjoyment of glory. The manner in which Ex­
treme Unction achieves this effect is, according to Saint Bonaven­
ture, mediate, or through the devotion and acts of fervor which
it arouses in the soul.” This is in accordance with his view on
the manner in which the sacraments generally remit venial sin.
Thus he states : “All of these means, whether sacraments or sacramentals, achieve the remission of venial sin not through their
own proper nature, but rather through their common nature
through which they can aid and invigorate sanctifying grace to
this act.”1’ Scotus follows the opinion of Saint Bonaventure and
holds the view that the principal effect of this sacrament is the
remission of venial sin:

It is fitting that when one is about to depart from
this life he should be finally absolved from venial sins,
since these sins, if they were not remitted, would be an
impediment to the attainment of glory, and they can13 Saint Bonaventure, Ibid:
Sed notandum quod de veniali peccato est loqui dupliciter, aut prout est
quis in statu viae, aut prout est in egressu.
” Ibid., conci. 2:
Modus autem curandi veniale peccatum in hoc sacramento respondet
modo infirmitatis. Veniale autem peccatum gravat animam deprimendo,
ut non ita intendat in Deum per devotionem et amorem, pro eo quod
est ibi conversio inordinata ad commutabile bonum, et pro eo quod est
ibi amor minor Dei, et ideo cum curatio directe sit per contrarium, per
illud curatur, quod animam aggravatam per devotionem sursum elevat.
17 Ibid., q. 2:
Omnia illa sive sacramenta sive sacramentalia faciunt ad venialium dele­
tionem non per propriam naturam, sed per eam naturam, qua gratiam
gratum facientem ad hunc actum adiuvant et vigorant.

56

The Remission of Venial Sin

not be remitted until the moment of death, as the sinner,
as it were, almost continually commits such sins. This is
indeed true. It is proven from the very text of James 5·'
‘If he be in sin, they will be forgiven him.’ This is not
intended with reference to mortal sins, since these are
remitted only in Baptism and Penance, so it must refer
to venial sins.”
The teaching of these two gives the main stream of the teach­
ing of the Franciscan school to which Saint Thomas voiced his
objection. It now remains to see what his teaching is on the rela­
tion of Extreme Unction to the remission of venial sin.

Each sacrament is principally instituted for one effect,
although it may happen that other effects follow as con­
sequences. And since the sacrament effects what it signi­
fies, from its signification the principal effect of a sacra­
ment should be taken. This sacrament is applied after
the manner of a medication, just as Baptism is after the
manner of an ablution. Medicine, however, is for the
removal of sickness. So this sacrament was instituted
principally for the curing of the infirmity or weakness
of sin; so, just as Baptism is a spiritual regeneration,
and Penance a spiritual resurrection, so also Extreme
Unction is a spiritual healing or medication.”
'· Scotus, In 4, dist. 2J, q. 1, no. 2:
Congruum est recessurum, scilicet, ab hac vita finaliter a venialibus absolvi
quia ista non remissa essent impedimentum gloriae consequendae, et non
remissa possunt esse usque ad exitum, quia peccator quasi continue pec­
cat talibus peccatis. Hoc etiam factum est. Probatur ex illo verbo Jac.
5:15: ‘Si in peccatis est, remittentur ei.’ Non intelligit de mortalibus,
quia haec non remittuntur nisi in baptismo vel poenitentia, ergo de ve­
nialibus.
'* Thomas Aquinas, Suppi., q. 30, a. 1, in corp.:
Dicendum quod quodlibet sacramentum est institutum principaliter ad unum
effectum, quamvis etiam alios ex consequenti inducere possit. Et quia sa­
cramentum efficit quod figurat, ideo ex ipsa significatione sacramenti de­
bet accipi eius principalis effectus. Adhibetur autem hoc sacramentum
secundum modum cuiusdam medicationis, sicut baptismus per modum
ablutionis. Medicina autem est ad pellendum infirmitatem. Unde prin­
cipaliter hoc sacramentum est institutum ad sanandum infirmitatem pec-

Remedies for Venial Sin

67

So the principal effect of this sacrament, in the mind of Saint
Thomas, is the removal of the consequences of sin. Still the
sacrament has the power to remit sin: “But since this sacrament
gives an added strength to grace, which is not compatible with
sin, as a consequence of this, if there be any sin present, whether
mortal or venial, as long as the recipient places no impediment
in the way, it will be remitted even as regards guilt;”.*" This effect
will not always take place as there will not always be sin on the
soul of the recipient. Yet, this effect is directly from the sacra­
ment, even though it is a secondary effect. Then, Extreme Unc­
tion does remit venial sin, and it seems with a special efficacy.
And in accord with the general teaching of Saint Thomas this
effect will be achieved mediately through the arousing of an act
of fervor which will be formally opposed to venial sin. So he
states in this same question:

Although the guilt of sin, in so far as it is a stain,
cannot be taken away without contrition, nevertheless,
this sacrament, through the grace which it pours into
the soul, effects that the act of free will towards sin is
contrition, as likewise could happen in the Eucharist and
in Confirmation.”
In this mention of sin Saint Thomas does not distinguish
mortal or venial. This process would certainly be effective in the
case of venial sin, so, in view of his general treatment of the re­
mission of venial sin and his explicit reference which was quoted
cati; ut, sicut baptismus est quaedam spiritualis regeneratio, et poeniten­
tia quaedam spiritualis suscitatio, ita et extrema unctio est quaedam
spiritualis sanatio vel medicatio.
“ Ibid.·.
Sed quia hoc robur gratia facit, quae secum non compatitur peccatum,
ideo ex consequenti, si invenit peccatum aliquod, vel mortale vel veniale,
quoad culpam, tollit ipsum, dummodo non ponatur obex ex parte reci­
pientis; ...
” Ibid., ad 2:
Quamvis enim culpa quoad maculam sine contritione non dimittatur,
tamen hoc sacramentum per gratiam quam infundit, facit quod ille motus
liberi arbitrii in peccatum sit contritio, sicut etiam in Eucharistia et con­
firmatione potest accidere.

68

The Remission of Venial Sin

above” in full, it can be concluded that Saint Thomas holds that
Extreme Unction remits venial sin and that it remits it mediately
though through its own intrinsic power.”
The opinion of Saint Thomas appears to be the better one. He
avoids the danger of eliminating the effect of the sacrament on
the bodily health of the recipient, a danger into which Scotus
fell, and the difficulty of withholding the reception of the sacra­
ment until the instant of death so that no more venial sins could
be committed. He has a strong reason, in the compatibility of
grace and venial sin, behind his statement that no sacrament was
instituted principally for the remission of venial sin, as all of
these were instituted to give grace. His opinion retains the fit­
tingness of the sacrament as a means for the final remission of
venial sin, as he holds that the sacrament does remit sin even
though he denies that this is its principal effect. That this sacra­
ment remits venial sin mediately does not mean that it does not
do so of its own intrinsic power. This sacrament pours grace into
the soul and there is no formal opposition between grace and ve­
nial sin. This infusion of grace effects an act of fervor and
between this act of fervor and venial sin there is formal opposi­
tion, so through this means which is caused by the power and
action of the sacrament, the venial sin is remitted. If immediate
remission is to be held, there must be some formal opposition
shown between the grace given and venial sin, and this is a dif­
ficult task. The view of Saint Thomas is simple and reasonable.”

RECEPTION OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST AS A MEANS
FOR THE REMISSION OF VENIAL SIN
In treating the reasons for the institution of this sacrament, the
Council of Trent mentions the remission of venial sins:

Moreover, He wished that this sacrament be received
as the spiritual food of souls (Matt. 26:26), by which
” Chapter 3, Note 19.
“ See note 3, Chapter 3.
” See: Kem, Joseph, S.J., De Sacramento Extremae Unctionis (Pustet, Ratisbon. 1907) P. 186, for summary of views on manner of remission.

Remedies for Venial Sin

69

they may be nourished and strengthened, living by the
life of Him who said: ‘He who eateth me, the same also
shall live by me.’ (John 6:58), and as an antidote, where­
by we may be freed from daily faults and be preserved
from mortal sins.25

The choice of verbs in this passage is significant. With regard
to daily faults, a traditional term for venial sins, the Eucharist
grants freedom, or remission, however, with regard to mortal sin,
this sacrament, primarily, in intended as a preventive means, an
aid in the avoidance of mortal sin. In the Roman Catechism the
remissive power of the Eucharist with regard to venial sins is
clearly stated: “Indeed, the fact that those light sins which are
usually called venial are remitted and forgiven through the Eu­
charist, must not be doubted.”25 That this sacrament had the
power to remit venial sins has been the constant and traditional
teaching of the church, and the statement of the Council of Trent
confirms this as the traditional opinion. All of the authors had
treated this power in their works on the Eucharist, and with re­
gard to the existence of this power they were in agreement. In
their treatment of the manner in which this power achieves its
effect, however, there was a difference of opinion. The problem
centers on this question, does the Eucharist remit venial sin im­
mediately or mediately through the act of fervor which is conse­
quent upon the infusion of grace which is conferred by the
sacrament? Both opinions are tenable, so in our consideration of
the problem the view of Saint Thomas will be given first, both as
a guide to the problem and as the solution of the problem.
The teaching of Saint Thomas on the remission of venial sin is
that the remission is mediately achieved through the act of the
” Council of Trent, Sessio 13, de Eucharistia, cap. 2; E.S., no. 875:
Sumi autem voluit sacramentum hoc tamquam spiritualem animarum
cibum (Mt. 26:26), quo alantur et confortenter, viventes vita illius, qui
dixit: ‘Qui manducat me, et ipse vivet propter me.’ (John 6:58), et
tamquam antidotum, quo liberemur a culpis quotidianis et a peccatis
mortalibus praeservemur.
Roman Catechism, Part 2, Chap. 4, no. 52:
Remitti vero Eucharistia et condonari leviora peccata quae venialia dici
solent non est quod dubitari debeat.

70

The Remission of Venial Sin

fervor of charity, as this is the entity to which venial sin is for­
mally opposed.21 This act of fervor can be caused in several. ways :
I answer that as it was stated above venial sins are
remitted through the fervor of charity; and so whatever
can arouse the fervor of charity can cause the remission
of venial sins. Now, the act of charity is proper to the
will; and the will can be inclined towards something in
three ways: at times this will be the demonstration of
something by the reason alone; at times, however, this
inclination may come from the reason and at the same
time from another interior incitement, which is from a
superior cause, namely God; and at times with this, also
from the tendency of an inhering habit.
There are some things which cause the remission of
venial sins in so far as they incline the will to a fervent
act of charity in all three of the aforementioned ways;
and it is this way that venial sins are remitted by the
sacraments of the New Law : since the intellect considers
them as a salutary medicine, and the divine power con­
tained in them acts secretly to assure salvation, and also
through the sacraments is conferred the gift of habitual
grace.28
27 De Malo, q. 7, a. 11, in corp.; a. 12, in corp.; S. T., 3, q. 87, a. 2, in corp.;
a. 3, in corp.
25 De Malo, q. 7, a. 12, in corp.; ‘‘sicut supra dictum” refers to q. 7, a. 11,
corp.:
Dicendum quod sicut supra dictum est per fervorem caritatis peccata ve­
nialia remittuntur; et ideo quaecumque nata sunt excitare fervorem cari­
tatis possunt causare remissionem peccatorum venialium. Actus autem
caritatis ad voluntatem pertinet; quae quidem tripliciter ad aliquid in­
clinatur: aliquando quidem ex sola ratione aliquid demonstrante; ali­
quando autem ex ratione simul et aliquo interiori instinctu, qui est a
causa superiori, scilicet Deo; aliquando autem cum hoc etiam ex inclina­
tione habitus inhaerentis.
Sunt quidem quaedam quae causant remissionem peccati venialis in
quantum inclinant voluntatem ad ferventem caritatis actum secundum
tria praedicta; et sic per sacramenta novae legis venialia peccata remit­
tuntur: quia et ratio ea considerat ut quasdam salutares medicinas, et
divina virtus in eis secretius operatur salutem, et etiam per ea confertur
habitualis gratiae donum.

Remedies for Venial Sin

71

Thus the sacraments achieve the effect of remitting venial
sins, in the above passage from Saint Thomas, through the me­
dium of an act of fervor which they cause through their intrinsic
power. Note that Saint Thomas speaks of the sacraments in gen­
eral. He makes no special mention of the Eucharist, and so,
from this passage it seems that the Eucharist achieves this effect
in the same manner as the other sacraments. This implication is
present in many statements of Saint Thomas. For example:

There are three ways in which anything can cause the
remission of venial sins: One manner is in so far as the
thing causes an infusion of grace, as venial sins are taken
away through an infusion of grace. And it is in this
manner that venial sins are remitted through the Eu­
charist and Extreme Unction, and universally through
all of the sacraments of the new law, in which grace is
conferred."

Worthy of note in this passage is the equality of all of the
sacraments with regard to the manner in which venial sins are
remitted. This does not necessarily imply that all of the sacra­
ments have the same efficacy for the remission of venial sins.
For example, the Sacrament of Baptism would remit all of the
temporal punishment due to venial sin, while this effect could
not be expected from the Sacrament of Matrimony. However,
this statement does imply that all of the sacraments are equal in
their basic ability to remit venial sins. This remission would result
from the very fact that all of the sacraments confer grace and it
would be effected in the same manner in all of the sacraments.
It is significant that Saint Thomas places emphasis on the simi­
larity in the manner of remission of venial sin by Extreme Unc­
tion and by the Eucharist. This should be borne in mind as we
consider the following statement by Saint Thomas:
” S. T., 3, q. 87, a. 3, in corp.·.
Et ideo triplici ratione aliqua causant remissionem venialium peccatorum.
Uno modo, inquantum in eis infunditur gratia, quia per infusionem gra­
tiae tolluntur venialia peccata, ut supra (art. 2. corp.) dictum est. Et hoc
modo per Eucharistiam et extremam unctionem, et universaliter per
omnia sacramenta novae legis, in quibus confertur gratia, peccata venialia
remittuntur.

72

The Remission of Venial Sin
I answer that in this sacrament there are two elements
which should be considered: the sacrament itself and
the thing signified by the sacrament. And from both it
is apparent that this sacrament has the power to remit
venial sin. For this sacrament is received under the
species of nourishing food. The nourishment of food is
necessary for the body to restore that which it daily
loses through the activity of natural heat. Spiritually
also, something is daily lost in us by the heat of con­
cupiscence through the commission of venial sins, which
. diminish the fervor of charity, as was held in the Second
Part, [Ila llae, q.24, a.10; q.54, a.3] And so it is that
this sacrament has the power to remit venial sins. As
Ambrose says in his book De Sacramentis, [Lib.5, Cap.
4; M.L.16,472] that this daily bread is taken as a remedy
for our daily infirmities. Furthermore, the thing signi­
fied by this sacrament is charity, not only in so far as
it is a habit, but also in so far as it is an act which is
aroused in this sacrament, and through which venial sins
are remitted. So it is evident that venial sins are re­
mitted through the power of this sacrament.”

This statement with reference to the effect of this sacrament
being charity as an act as well as a habit, and the remark that
” S. T„ 3, q. 79, a. 4, corp.:
Dicendum quod in hoc sacramento duo possunt considerari: scilicet ipsum
sacramentum, et res sacramenti. Et ex utroque apparet quod hoc sacra­
mentum habet virtutem ad remissionem venialium peccatorum. Nam hoc
sacramentum sumitur sub specie cibi nutrientis. Nutrimentum autem cibi
est necessarium corpori ad restaurandum id quod quotidie deperditur per
actionem caloris naturalis. Spiritualiter autem quotidie aliquid in nobis
deperditur ex calore concupiscentiae per peccata venialia, quae diminuunt
fervorem caritatis, ut in Secunda Parte [Ilallae, q. 24, a. 10; q. 54, a. 3]
habitum est. Et ideo competit huic sacramento ut remittat peccata ve­
nialia. Unde et Ambrosius dicit in libro De Sacramentis, quod iste panis
quotidianus sumitur in remedium quotidianae infirmitatis. Res autem
huius sacramenti est caritas, non solum quantum ad habitum, sed etiam
quantum ad actum, qui excitatur in hoc sacramento, per quod peccata
venialia solvuntur. Unde manifestum est quod virtute huius sacramenti
remittuntur venialia peccata.

Remedies for Venial Sin

73

this act would be remissive of venial sin, has been taken by some
to mean that the Eucharist has the power of remitting venial sin
immediately. This is difficult to see. Saint Thomas in this very
passage points out the direct effect of the sacrament as an act
of charity, and it is through this medium, this act of charity, that
the venial sin is to be remitted. This is still mediate remission
of the sin. Furthermore, in the passage previously cited81 Saint
Thomas states that all of the sacraments, and he specifically lists
the Eucharist, act in the same manner to remit venial sin, that is,
mediately, or through the aroused act of fervor.
In favor of the mediate remission of venial sin through the
Eucharist many authors can be quoted:

Billuart: I suppose before all, that neither the sacra­
ments nor the sacramentals remit venial sins immediate­
ly, but only through the medium of an act of virtual
penance, to which the sinner is aroused through special
aids ..
Van Noort: Hence the Eucharist is called by the Coun­
cil of Trent, ‘an antidote, by which we are freed from
our daily faults’. However, the Eucharist achieves this
effect in this manner; it arouses fervent acts of charity,
which are, indeed, directly opposed to venial sins and
to tepidity."

Merkelbach: Those venial sins to which the recipient
is not adhering in his desires the Eucharist remits di­
rectly. For these are directly opposed to the prime end
31 S. T., 3, q. 87, a. 3, in corp.
“ Billuart, op. cit., Diss. 3, a. 2, no. 3:
Suppono ante omnia, neque sacramenta neque sacramentalia remittere
peccata venialia immediate, sed mediante tantum actu virtualis poeniten­
tiae, ad quem per auxilia specialia excitant . . .
“ Van Noort, G., Tractatus De Sacramentis (Van Langenhuysen, Amsteldam,
1910) vol. 1, no. 407:
Hinc Eucharistia a conc. trid. vocatur, ‘antidotum, quo liberamur a culpis
quotidianis*. Hunc autem effectum Eucharistia operatur eo, quod excitat
fervidos actus charitatis, quippe qui culpis venialibus et tepiditati directe
opponuntur.

Ί4-

The Remission of Tentai Sin

of this sacrament, namely, the fervor of charity. So this
sacrament remits them in so far as it arouses the reci­
pient to such acts of charity as at least implicitly and
virtually include a hatred for venial sin.”
Aertnys-Damen: The effects of the Eucharist on the
soul of the recipient are: . . . The remission of venial
sins, according to Trent, Session 13, Chapter 2, which
calls this Sacrament the ‘antidote by which we are freed
from our daily faults, and by which we are preserved
from mortal sins’. It confers this remission, not imme­
diately, as many hold, but in so far as it arouses an
explicit or implicit act of hatred for venial sins; and
especially by arousing fervent acts of charity, for there
is contained in these acts, by reason of their fervor an
implied hatred of venial sin."

Prümmer·. The reason for the remission of venial sins
by the Eucharist is the increased fervor of charity, and
this comes not only ex opere operantis but also ex opere
operato, that is from the power of the sacrament itself.
For venial sin and the fervor of charity are mutually
exclusive.”
“ Merkelbach, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 263:
Venialia quibus homo non adhaeret affectu, Eucharistia remittit directe.
Directe enim opponuntur effectui primario sacramenti, scilicet fervori
charitatis. Unde illa remittit quatenus excitat tales actus charitatis qui
saltem implicite et virtualiter includunt venialium displicentiam.
“ Aertnys-Damen, op. cit., vol. 2, no. 102:
Effectus Eucharistiae in anima sunt: ... 4. Remissio peccatorum venia­
lium, secundum Trid. sess. 13, cap. 2, quod vocat Sacramentum hoc
‘antidotum quo liberemur a culpis quotidianis et a peccatis mortalibus
praeservemur’. Confert remissionem illam, non immediate, ut plures vo­
lunt, sed quatenus excitat actum displicentiae explicitum vel implicitum
peccatorum venialium; praesertim excitando actus fervidos charitatis, in
quibus ratione fervoris iam implicita displicentia peccatorum venialium
continetur.
” Prümmer, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 182:
Ratio cur eucharistia deleat peccata venialia, est fervor caritatis auctus,
et quidem non solum ex opere operantis, sed etiam ex opere operato, id
est vi ipsius sacramenti. Peccatum enim veniale et fervor caritatis se in­
vicem destruunt.

1

Remedies for Venial Sin
Doronzo: The theologians dispute whether the Eu­
charist remits venial sins immediately or only mediately
as through the medium of an act of charity. It seems
that the Eucharist remits them through the medium of
an act of charity, for, as was shown in the tract De
Poenitentia, it is only through an act of charity, as
through a contrary, that venial sin can be removed; and
nevertheless the fact is that the Euchari str through its
own action and nature remits venial sin, both in so far
as it is unitive to Christ through the production of
charity, not only as a habit but also as an act, and by
this venial sin would be remitted, and in so far as it is
a food which is reparative of spiritual powers, so that,
it is true that if the sacrament were not otherwise pro­
ductive of an act of charity, from this fact, that it is
reparative, it should produce such an act, so that through
it venial sins would be removed.
From this can be seen the difference between the
manner in which venial sins are remitted through any
infusion of grace, and consequently through the re­
ception of any sacrament, [see S.T., 3.q.87s a.2 and 5]
and the manner in which the Eucharist remits the pun­
ishment due to sin; for these two effects are achieved
indirecdy and as a consequence, while the Eucharist
remits venial sins per se and through itself.”
K Doronzo, Emmanuel,
De Eucharistia (Milwaukee, Bruce, 1947)
vol. 1, p. 468:
Disputant theologi utrum Eucharista peccata venialia remittat immediate
an tantum mediate seu mediante actu charitatis. Dicendum videtur quod
Eucharistia ea remittat mediante actu charitatis, nam, ut probatur in
tractatu De Poenitentia, tantummodo per actum charitatis, tanquam per
contrarium, peccatum veniale auferri potest; et tamen cum hoc stat quod
Eucharistia ea remittit mediante actu charitatis, nam, ut probatur in
unitiva Christo per productionem charitatis non tantum secundum habitum
sed etiam secundum actum, quo venialia destruuntur, tum quatenus est
cibatio reparativa virium spiritualium, ita nempe quod si aliunde non
esset productiva actus caritatis, ex hoc ipso quod sit reparativa deberet
illum producere ad hoc ut ad ipsum peccata venialia destruantur.
Ex quo intelligitur discrimen tum cum modo quo peccata venialia re-

76

The Remission of Venial Sin

Connell: The remission of venial sin and of the tem­
poral punishment due to sin. This effect would seem to
be only indirect—that is, through the acts of charity
aroused by this sacrament venial sins are remitted if
there is contained in these acts at least a virtual hatred
for these sins.88
Some authors, such as Cappello and Lehmkuhl,30 place emphasis
on the fact that this sacrament remits venial sin through its
own power. Now, while they are not explicit, it does seem that
they consider immediate remission and remission through the
power of the sacrament itself to be identical. Prümmer" and
Doronzo" both implicitly deny this equivocation in their state­
ments that the sacrament remits venial sin through the act of the
fervor of charity and their emphasis that the remission is effected
through the power of the sacrament itself.
The authors who hold that the sacrament remits venial sin im­
mediately would apear to be following the teaching of Suarez
on the remission of venial sin. He does, in fact, hold that the
Eucharist remits venial sin immediately.42 However, more im­
portant here is his view of the manner in which venial sin is re­
mitted, a more basic consideration than the manner in which it
is remitted in the sacraments or in the Eucharist in particular.
For the very concept of immediate remission of venial sin through
the sacraments requires a different view of the manner in which
mittuntur per quamlibet gratiae infusionem et consequenter per quodlibet
sacramentum (cf. q. 87, a. 2 et 3), tum cum modo quo ipsa Eucharistia
remittit poenam peccati; haec enim duo fiunt per accidens et es conse­
quenti, dum Eucharistia peccata venialia remittit per se et ratione sui.
88 Connell, Francis J., De Sacramentis Ecclesiae, (Beyaert, Brugis, 1933) p.
253, no. 3:
Remissio peccatorum venialium et poenae temporalis. Hic effectus vide­
tur esse indirectus tantum-scilicet, per actus caritatis hoc sacramento ex­
citatos, remittuntur peccata venialia dummodo eorum displicentia vir­
tualités saltem in illis actibus contineatur.
" Lehmkuhl, op. cit., vol. 2, no. 116; Capello, op. cit., vol. 1, no. 235.
40 Priimmer, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 182.
“ Doronzo, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 468.
41 Suarez, q. 79, a. 4, dis. 63, sect. 10, no. 1, Opera Omnia, vol. 21.

'

Remedies for Venial Sin

77

venial sin is remitted from that which is presented by Saint
Thomas. The formal opposition between venial sin and the re­
missive entity which is required by Saint Thomas is not required
in the view of Suarez.
Having mentioned the power of the sacraments to remit mortal
sin ex opere operato, Suarez considers their power to remit venial
sin:

But perhaps someone will deny the similarity, since
through the sacrament grace is poured into the soul, and
this grace is a form which of its very nature is incom­
patible with mortal sin, and therefore the sacrament can
of its own intrinsic power drive out mortal sin; how­
ever, this form is not incompatible with venial sin; and
hence it does not follow that in respect to this type of
sin there can be a sacramental effect which is ex opere
operato. But the contrary is true, for, in order that God
may remit venial sin it is not necessary that there be
infused into the soul a real form which is formally in­
compatible with venial sin, since, strictly speaking, there
is no such thing..."
In this passage Suarez is speaking of the intrinsic power of the
sacrament to remit venial sin and not necessarily about the im­
mediate remission of venial sin. He refers to venial sin when
joined to mortal sin, but still his statement is of value to our
present consideration because of the mention of an opposed form
with regard to the remission of venial sin. This form has been
the very thing demanded and recognized by Saint Thomas in the
act of the fervor of charity. It is here that the basic difference
a Suarez, q. 87, a. 4, dis. 12, sect. 1, no. 1:
Sed fortasse negabit aliquis similitudinem, quia per sacramentum infun­
ditur gratia, quae est fonna natura sua incompossibilis cum peccato mor­
tali, et ideo potest ex opere operato excludi, non est tamen illa forma in­
compossibilis cum peccato veniali; et ideo non sequitur respectu illius
esse possibilem efficacitatem ex opere operato. Sed contra, nam, ut Deus
remittat peccatum veniale, non est necesse, ut infundat formam physicam
fonnaliter incompossibilem illi, quia revera, in rigore loquendo, nulla
talis est . . .

78

The Remission of Venial Sin

lies between the opinion of Saint Thomas and that of Suarez.
Following the opinion of Saint Thomas this opposing form must
be present or there can be no remission, and so the sacraments
by causing an infusion of grace, a form which is compatible with
venial sin, cannot remit venial sin immediately. Again it should
be noted that this is not to say that the sacraments cannot remit
venial sin ex opere operato; but that they, through the infusion
of grace, arouse an act of charity, and that this act is formally
opposed to venial sin and so is remissive of this sin. However,
this act of fervor flows from the sacrament as an effect, mediate,
but an effect of the sacrament nevertheless."
Following the opinion of Suarez are these:

Noldin-Schmitt : There are those who hold that this
sacrament produces this effect [remission of venial sins
by the Eucharist] only mediately by the act of the re­
cipient, in this manner, that this sacrament arouses in
us acts of charity and of penance, and by these acts the
venial sins are remitted. But this does not seem to draw
out fully what was said by the Council of Trent. There­
fore, the more common opinion holds that venial sins
are remitted immediately and through the intrinsic
power of this sacrament; presuming, at least, the proper
disposition, which need not be attrition of such a nature
that the sin be remitted through its power, but at least
a removal of any obstacle to remission, or an aversion
of the will to sin."
Suarez does admit the possibility of an effect which is ex opere operato and
still a mediate effect of the sacrament in dis. 63, sect. 10, no. 1, on q.
79, a. 4:
Nam si tam perfecta dispositio esset necessaria, per illam esset ablatum
peccatum veniale; et ideo sacramentum numquam hunc effectum con­
ferret ex opere operato, nisi forte mediate et remote, quatenus auxilium ad
talem actum datur per sacramentum et tunc ille actus non esset dis­
positio ad sacramentum, sed potius effectus eius ...
“ Noldin-Schmitt, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 104:
Sunt qui dicant hunc effectum solum produci mediate ex opere operantis,
eo quod hoc sacramentum in nobis excitant actus caritatis et poeniten­
tiae, quibus dein deleantur venialia. Sed hoc non videtur exhaurire quod

Remedies for Fenial Sin

79

Noldin would not admit the possibility of mediate remission
flowing from the intrinsic power of the sacrament, as did Priimmer." In this he is in agreement with Cappello and Lehmkuhl as
was mentioned above."

Regatillo-Zalba·. The remission of venial sins is achieved,
not only mediately, in so far as the Eucharist arouses
us to acts of charity and sorrow, by which venial sins are
remitted; but also, as is commonly held, the Eucharist
remits venial sins immediately and through the intrinsic
power of the sacrament, supposing a disposition sufficient
for the removal of any obstacle to remission, even
though such a disposition may, of itself, be insufficient
to secure remission of the venial sins."
The best treatment of this opinion is given in De
Lugo: There is a doubt as to whether this remission
[of venial sins] results immediately from the Eucharist
or mediately, in so far as it arouses in us an effect of
devotion or of sorrow, to which the remission of venial
sin would be a consequence, this second manner of re­
mission appears to be indicated in the Summa Theologica,q.79/trt.4."> But the more common opinion teaches
that this effect is achieved immediately, granted that

*
"

“

"

dicit cone, trident. Ideo communior sententia tenet immediate et ex opere
operato remitti venialia; supponitur utique dispositio sufficiens, quae non
necessario debet esse attritio talis, ut vi ipsius iam remittatur peccatum,
sed saltem remotio obicis, id est aversio voluntatis a peccato.
Priimmer, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 182.
Cappello, op. cit., vol. 1, no. 235; Lehmkuhl, op. cit., vol. 2, no. 116, see
above, p. 92.
Regatillo-Zalba, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 302:
Remissio peccatorum venialium; non solum mediata, quatenus ad actus
caritatis et doloris nos excitat, quibus haec peccata remittuntur; sed etiam
ut communiter, tenetur, immediata ex opere operato, supposita dispositione
sufficiente ad obicem tollendum, quamvis insufficiente ex se ad ipsam re­
missionem (S. Th., 3, q. 79, a. 16). (Sic)
It is interesting to note that same reference to the Summa Theologica of
Saint Thomas, namely, S. T. 3, q. 79, a. 4, is appealed to in RegatilloZalba, as quoted in the previous note, in support of the immediate remis­
sion of venial sin; and is taken by De Lugo, in the following note, to

80

The Remission of Venial Sin
the Eucharist can act in this second manner, it can also
act in the first manner, that is without the mediation of
any act, when it is preceded by some at least virtual
displeasure and some drawing back from venial sin;
this would also seem to be taught in the Summa Theologica,q.87,art.3; concerning all of the sacraments, which
opinion is followed by Suarez in his, disp.l2,sect.l, on
the present subject, and in vol.3,disp.63,sec.l0; and
Vasquez in his dub. 2, on the present subject, and also
commonly by others. Nor does Saint Thomas seem to have
taught the opposite to this opinion in article four, for
he merely indicated both manners in which venial sin
could be remitted through the Eucharist, not that both
manners would be necessary at the same time, as Suarez
explains so well in his exposition on the article. So this
opinion would seem to be the more probable one; be­
cause in the contrary opinion there does not seem to be a
sufficient explanation of how the liberation from venial
sin is an effect of the Eucharist: for often it will happen
that this effect is not achieved, either due to the fact
that the man has no memory of the sin, or because he
lacks reflection, or because of other impediments, in
which cases this food would not be reparative of the
losses brought about through the heat of concupiscence."0
support mediate remission. The reference to the Summa as given in Regatillo-Zalba is quoted in note 48; however, this reference is evidently incor­
rect as there are but eight articles in this question in the Summa Theolo­
gica. The classical reference, and the only one pertinent to the matter being
considered by Regatillo-Zalba, is article four. So the presumption stands
that the reference intends article four.

“ De Lugo, op. cit., De Poenitentia, Disp. 9, Sect. 3, no. 46:
Dubium est, an haec remissio proveniat immediate ab Eucharistia, an
vero mediate, quatenus excitat in nobis effectum devotionis, et doloris,
ad quem consequitur remissio venialium, quem secundum modum vide­
tur indicare S. Thomae in q. 79, art. 4. Sed communior sententia docet,
provenire etiam immediate, licet enim possit secundo modo conducere
Eucharistia, potest tamen etiam primo modo, sine eo quod mediet alius
actus, dum tamen praecedat aliqua saltem victualis displicentia, et re­
tractatio venialium: quod etiam videtur docuisse S. Thomae in praesenti

Remedies for Venial Sin

81

This consideration of the two currents of thought on the
manner in which the Eucharist remits venial sin shows that they
are based on a different evaluation of the basic requirement for
the remission of venial sin, with Saint Thomas demanding the
positing of an act which has formal opposition to venial sin and
the proponents of the other view which was stated in the passage
from Suarez51 seeing no need for such a formally opposing act.
Both opinions are tenable but the opinion of Saint Thomas seems
to be the more reasonable, and it will require more than a mere
denial, as that of Suarez, to shake it. It is certain that this sacra­
ment remits venial sin and that it does this ex opere operato,
probably, following the opinion of Saint Thomas, it achieves this
effect mediately. Since the direct effect of this sacrament is the
arousing of acts of charity, it has mediate power against venial
sin which is formally opposed to acts of the fervor of charity.
Hence the traditional teaching that this sacrament is intended for
the remission of our daily faults has an excellent theological
foundation, and this fact should be taught more often and more
clearly to the faithful.

EXTRA-SACRAMENTAL REMEDIES FOR VENIAL SIN
The ‘many other remedies’ mentioned in the Council of Trent55
extend beyond the sacraments. Since the infusion of grace is not
required for the remission of these sins, there is no reason why
instruments which confer grace through their own power should
q. 87, art. 3; de omnibus sacramentis quam sententiam sequuntur Suarez
in praesenti disp. 12, sect. 1, et tom. 3, disp. 63, sect. 10, Vasquez in
praesenti dubio 2, et alii communiter. Nec S. Thomas videtur oppositum
docuisse iilo art. 4, solum enim indicavit utrumque modum tollendi pec­
cata venialia per Eucharistiam, non tamen ita ut uterque esset simul ne­
cessarius, ut explicat bene Suarez ibi in expositione articuli. Quare pro­
babilior videtur haec sententia; nam in sententia contraria non videtur
satis explicari, quomodo liberatio a venialibus sit effectus Eucharistiae:
saepe enim continget, effectum illi non poni, vel quia homo non attendit
ad memoriam peccatorum, vel quia caret judicio, vel propter alia im­
pedimenta, quo casu cibus non repararet, quod per calorem concupiscen­
tiae deperditum fuerat.
“ See note 43; Suarez, op. cit., disp. 12, sect. 1, no. 1, on q. 87, a. 4.
a Council of Trent, Sessio 14, Cap. 5, de confessione; E. S., no. 899.

82

The Remission of Venial Sin

be required as means for the remission of these sins. In fact, in
the view of Saint Thomas there is scarcely any limit to these
“other remedies”:
... for the remission of venial sin an infusion of new
grace is not required, but any act which proceeds from
grace, and by which one shows his hatred for venial sin,
either explicitly, or at least implicitly, as when one fer­
vently turns towards God, would suffice for the remis­
sion of these sins.“

So the external remedies for venial sin need only the ability
to arouse in the venial sinner an act by which he will withdraw
his will from the venial sin. This has been considered in the pre­
vious chapter where it was concluded that the purpose of any
remedy for venial sin is to lead the sinner to an act of fervor
which is formally opposed to venial sin. Merkelbach is explicit on
this point:

Venial sin is remitted by an act of the fervor of charity
alone, which act includes a hatred for this sin. Although
many other causes are customarily listed, they can all
be reduced to this one, since they are but means for the
arousing of an act of fervent charity, and they remit ve­
nial sin not immediately, but through the medium of this
act of virtual penance.**

Now this view would mean that anything could be a remedy
for venial sin. The criterion would be the ability of the thing
to cause, or be the occasion for the eliciting of, an act of fervent
“ S. T., 3, q. 87, a 3, in corp.:
... ad remissionem venialis peccati non requiritur novae gratiae infusio,
sed sufficit aliquis actus procedens ex gratia quo aliquis detestetur pecca­
tum veniale vel explicite, vel saltem implicite sicut cum aliquis ferventer
movetur in Deum.
“ Merkelbach, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 459:
Peccatum veniale remittitur solo fervore charitatis qui eius displicentiam
includit. Quamvis multae aliae causae recenseri soleant, ad hanc unam
reduci possunt, quia non sunt nisi media ad fervorem charitatis procuran­
dum, ac non immediate remittunt sed mediante actu virtualis poeniten­
tiae.

Remedies for Venial Sin

83

charity on the part of the venial sinner. Thus any good act of the
sinner could gain the remission of his venial sins. This could
happen, in the first place, by the meriting of a new infusion of
sanctifying grace for we have seen that the teaching of Saint
Thomas in this matter is that an act of fervor is the consequence
of every infusion of grace, and that for this reason, every infusion
of grace results in a remission of venial sin." Again, the good act
of the sinner could be one of fervor or of penance, explicit, or im­
plicit in the performance of an act contrary to the act of sin, and
as this act would be directly opposed to venial sin it would im­
mediately remit the sin. The sinner could, in like manner, make
use of any of the sacramentals which are placed at his disposal
by the Church, and through the special power entrusted to them,
achieve the acts of fervor which are necessary for the remission
of his venial sins. The sacramentals will merit special attention
after consideration of one difficulty.
It would seem from what has been said, that any good act
would suffice for the remission of all of a person’s venial sins.
As stated this is not generally true, although it is possible. If the
sinner were to make an act of sufficient fervor that it would be
a virtual withdrawal of the will from all venial sins this would
be true. The ordinary good act is not of such intensity. The dif­
ference from mortal sin must be recalled here. All mortal sins are
one in their effect which is the privation of sanctifying grace.
Thus, as long as a person bears the guilt of a mortal sin it is
ontologically impossible for sanctifying grace to be in the soul.
In the same manner, once grace is infused all mortal sins are
remitted. This effect is total or it does not exist. Venial sins lack
this unity. Nor can it be objected that since all venial sin is
against the fervor of charity, then an act of fervor will remove all
venial sins in every case. For venial sin lessens the fervor of
charity, it does not remove it. This lessening of fervor of charity
can occur through an act against any of the virtues by which man
tends toward God. These venial sins are distinct in so far as they
are against the various virtues. They lack that inner unity which
mortal sins possess, since they are, from their very nature, unable
“ S. 7., 3, q. 87, a. 2, in corp.

84

The Remission of Venial Sin

to strike at the principle of these various virtues which is charity.
So an act against the virtue of temperance, when a venial sin, is
so distinct from a venial sin against fortitude, that an act of the
virtue of fortitude would not necessarily remit it. A venial sin
against a virtue does not destroy or diminish the habit of the
virtue, but only hinders the act of the virtue.” Thus an act of the
virtue, of equal intensity, suffices to remit entirely the previous
sin; or an act of the fervor of charity, which is the principle of
all the virtues, would suffice to remit the sin, Here, as constantly
in this discussion, the fervor of charity has a very restricted
meaning. It refers to the overflow of charity and not the essential
fervor of tendency toward God.” With regard to the remission of
venial sin through any good act, then, it can be stated that this
remission of all venial sins does not follow every good act. This
is so because of the diversity of venial sins through their objects,
their lack of unity in their effect, and the possibility of perform­
ance of an act of one virtue while acting in a venially sinful
manner against another virtue. Essential to this situation is the
basic difference between mortal and venial sin; the fact that
while mortal sin destroys the virtue of charity, the principle of
all of the virtues, venial sin has no effect on charity.
The sacramentels possess a special efficacy for the remission
of venial sin. With regard to sacramentals the Code of Canon
Law states:

Sacramentals are things or actions which the Church,
somewhat in imitation of the sacraments, is accustomed
to use for obtaining effects, and especially spiritual ef­
fects, through her intercession."
New sacramentals can be instituted or having been
accepted, can be authentically interpreted, only by the
*· Ibid., 1-2, q. 89, a. 1, in corp.
” De Malo, q. 7, a. 2, ad 17.
" Codex /uris Canonici, (Newman, Westminster, 1949) :
Canon 1144. Sacramentalis sunt res aut actiones quibus Ecclesia, in
aliquam Sacramentorum imitationem, uti solet ad obtinendos ex sua im­
petrationem effectus praesertim spirituales.

Remedies for Venial Sin

85

Holy See, The Holy See alone can abolish any of the
sacramentals or change any of them."
The law, then, gives as a general division that of actions and
things. There are different methods of listing sacramentals among
the theologians. For our present purpose there is no necessity of
an exhaustive listing, but rather an indication of the things which
fall under both headings. Under actions would fall; consecrations
of persons, constitutive blessings, ordinary blessings, and exor­
cisms.” Under things should be listed all of the various items such
as; blessed candles, holy water, rosaries and the like, which the
Church makes available for the use of the faithful.

More to the present purpose is the question of how these sacra­
mentals effect the remission of venial sin. In this question there
are two elements. First it can be stated as the common opinion
that the sacramentals achieve the remission of venial sin through
the arousing of an act of fervor on the part of the recipient, and
mediately through this act they remit venial sin." Now, they act
to arouse this act of the recipient, not through an intrinsic power,
as in the sacraments, but still the act does not originate entirely
in the powers of the person" in the manner in which it would if
these things being used were not sacramentals, for the sacramen­
tals act with the intercession of the Church. In the words of
Prümmer:
The effectiveness of the sacramentals does not con­
sist only in the good works, or prayers, or salutary in­
spirations, which are usually associated with them, but in
“ Ibid:
Canon 1145. Nova Sacramentalia constituere aut recepta authentice in­
terpretari, ex eisdem aliqua abolere aut mutare, sola potest Sedes Apostolica.
“° Leeming, Bernard, S.J., Principles of Sacramental Theology (Newman,
Westminster, 1956) p. 615, no. 751.
“ S. T., J, q. 87, a. 3, corp., ad. 1, ad 3; De Lugo, op. cit.. De Poenitentia,
disp. 9, sect. 4; Billuart, op. cit., diss. 3, a. 2, no. 3; Merkelbach, op. cit.,
vol. 3, no. 459; Regatillo-Zalba, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 999; Noldin-Schmitt,
op. cit., vol. 3, no. 51; Iorio, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 40; Priimmer, op. cit., vol.
3, no. 89; Van Noort, op. cit, no 157; Aertnys-Damen, op cit., vol. 2, no. 39.
·* Presupposing, of course, the action of actual grace.

1

86

The Remission of Venial Sin
the special intercessory power granted to them by the
Church. To be sure, the sacramentals do not have the
same effectiveness as the sacraments, for that is from the
power which was given to them direcdy by Christ, but
rather the sacramentals have joined to them the prayer
of the Church itself as suppliant, requesting these
graces...“

In this sense it can be said that the sacramentals oper­
ate through their own power which they receive from
the Church, or better, to avoid any ambiguity, it should
be said that the sacramentals achieve their effect through
the act of the Church and the person using the sacra­
mental.**

The sacramentals, then, pose no great difficulty with regard
to the remission of venial sins. They are another means of elicit­
ing the act of the fervor of charity which will be remissive of
venial sin. In arousing this act they have a greater effectiveness
because they make use of the intercessory power of the Church
to achieve their effect.
SACRAMENTAL PENANCE AS A REMEDY
FOR VENIAL SIN

Having considered the “many other remedies” mentioned in
the Council of Trent,"* there remains for discussion the remedy
of sacramental confession of venial sins. Here, as above, the case
in point is that of the sinner who, while guilty of venial sins, is
** Priimmer, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 91 :
Efficacia sacramentalium non consistit solum in bonis operibus aut pre­
cibus aut salubribus excitationibus, quae solent coniungi cum illis, sed in
speciali virtute impetratoria illis ab eccelsia concessa. Sane sacramentalia
non habent efficaciam sicut sacramenta, nempe ex virtute illis concessa
directe a Christo,-sed quia habent adnexas preces ab ipsa Ecclesia suppli­
cante pro gratiis obtinendis . . .
“ Ibid., no. 92:
In hoc sensu potest dici sacramentalia operari ex opere operato ab Ec­
clesia, sed melius, ad evitandas ambiguitates, dicendum est, sacramenta­
lia operari ex opere operantis cum Ecclesiae tum suscipientis hominis.
** Council of Trent, Sesiio 14, Cap. 15. De Conjessione, E. S., no. 899.

Remedies for Venial Sin

87

in the state of grace. The use of Penance by this person, while
certainly valid, licit, and useful, does present some difficulties. In
the case of the sinner with both mortal and venial sin, his re­
course to confession is necessary, and his remission of venial sin
is effected in the same manner as that of the sinner with venial
sin only. It is possible, of course, that his venial sins may not be
forgiven, due to some obstacle which he placed in the way of
their remission. So, in fact, the only difference between the sinner
with venial sin alone, and the sinner who has venial and mortal
sin, is the necessity of confession for the latter, and this necessity
pertains to the remission of the mortal sin only. However, as the
entire consideration so far has been of a sinner with venial sin
only, this section will consider the same situation.
The confession of venial sins is certainly lawful. Canon Seven
of the Council of Trent says; “If anyone says . . . that it is not
lawful to confess venial sins: let him be anathema.”” The law­
fulness of the confession of venial sin had been questioned by
Luther and this was condemned in the Bull Exsurge Domine."
Later, Pope Pius the Sixth, in the Constitution Auctorem Fidei,
in which he condemned the errors of the Synod of Pistoia, made
this declaration with regard to the confession of venial sins:

The declaration of the synod about the confession of
venial sins, which it does not wish, it says, to be so fre­
quently resorted to, lest confessions of this sort be ren­
dered too contemptible; this is rash, dangerous, and
contrary to the practice of the saints and of pious per­
sons which was approved by the Council of Trent."
“ Ibid., Canon 7, E. S., no. 917: “Si quis dixerit . . . demum non licere con­
fiteri peccata venialia: A. S.”
” Bull: Exsurgi Domini, Pope Leo X, June 15, 1520, E. S., no. 748: “Nullo
modo praesumas confiteri peccata venialia, sed nec omnia mortalia, quia im­
possible est, ut omnia mortalia cognoscas. Unde in primitiva Ecclesia solum
manifesta mortalia confitebantur.” This statement is condemned.
“ Constitution: Auctorim Eidii, Pius VI, August 28, 1794, E. S., no. 1539:
Declaratio synodi de peccatorum venialium confessione, quam optare se
ait non tantopere frequentari, ne nimium contemptibiles reddantur huiusmodi confessiones: — temeraria, perniciosa, Sanctorum ac piorum praxi
a sacro Concilio Tridentino probatae contraria.

88.

The Remission of Venial Sin

Worthy of note here is the point that it is the frequency of
confession of venial sins which is the matter of this disagreement.
The Synod of Pistoia and Pius the Sixth both presume the validity
and the lawfulness of the confession of venial sin. They disagree
as to the use of this means, not to its existence.

In our own times Pope Pius XII has spoken strongly in de­
fence of frequent confession of venial sins:
The same result would follow from the opinions of
those who assert that little importance should be given
to the frequent confession of venial sins. Of far greater
importance, they say, is that general confession which
the Spouse of Christ, surrounded by her children in the
Lord, makes each day by the mouth of the priest as he
approaches the altar. It is true indeed, Venerable Broth­
ers, that venial sins may be expiated in many ways which
are to be highly commended. But to hasten daily prog­
ress along the path of virtue, We wish the pious practice
of frequent confession to be earnestly advocated. Not
without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was this prac­
tice introduced into the Church. By it genuine selfknowledge is increased, Christian humility grows, bad
habits are corrected, spiritual neglect and tepidity are
conquered, the conscience is purified, the will strength­
ened, a salutary self-control is attained, and grace is
increased in virtue of the sacrament itself. Let those,
therefore, among the young clergy, who make light of,
or weaken esteem for, frequent confession, realize that
what they are doing is foreign to the Spirit of Christ,
and disastrous for the Mystical Body of our Saviour."

. Such a strong statement requires little comment. However, it
may prove useful later to note that all of the effects listed by His
Holiness with the exception of an increase in grace, are not ef­
fects which are achieved through the intrinsic power of the sacra“ Encyclical Letter: Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius ΧΠ, 1943, translated by
Bluett, Joseph, SJ., (America Press, New York, 1943) no. 103.

Remedies for Venial Sin

89

ment itself. In other words, while all of these things are the result
of frequent recourse to the Sacrament of Penance, many of them
come as a result of the acts of the penitent which are performed
on the occasion of confession.

Again in Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII referred to the confes­
sion of venial sins:

But because the opinions which are expressed by many
concerning frequent confession of sins, are absolutely
foreign to the Spirit of Christ and to that of His un­
spotted Spouse, and are, in fact, disastrous to the spiritual
life, we recall those things which we wrote with a heavy
heart on this subject in the Encyclical Letter on the
Mystical Body; and again and again we insist that you
make known to your flocks those things which there we
set out in most serious words, and especially to the can­
didates for the priesthood, and to the young clerics, to
be seriously meditated, and to be followed with a docile
mind.”
From these teachings there can be no doubt as to the value
of the confession of venial sin. Now, the effects of the Sacrament
of Penance with regard to the person who is guilty of venial sin
are numerous. These are not all effects which come from the in­
trinsic power of the sacrament Many are the result of prepara­
tion for the reception of this sacrament or are made possible
through the manifestation of conscience and humiliation which
are a part of this sacrament. So in the consideration of the effects
of Penance in the remission of venial sin these two types of ef­
fects must be considered. The first effects for discussion will be
those which come from the intrinsic power of the sacrament, the
effects of the sacramental operation itself.

” Encyclical Letter: Mediator Dei, Pope Pins ΧΠ, 1947, translated by Treacy,
Gerald, S.J. (Paulist Press, New York, 1948) no. 211.

90

The Remission of Venial Sin
EFFECTIVENESS OF SACRAMENTAL PENANCE
FOR THE REMISSION OF VENIAL SIN

EFFECTS EX OPERE OPERATO, OR FROM THE
INTRINSIC POWER OF THE SACRAMENT ITSELF
The Sacrament of Penance has as its proper and prime object
mortal sins committed after Baptism. Venial sin is also a proper
object, but it is so secondarily.” As a sacrament it has the con­
ferral of grace as its purpose, and this infusion of grace is re­
missive of mortal sin. When the recipient is in the state of grace
already, the sacrament effects an increase of sanctifying grace.
In comparing Baptism and Penance Saint Thomas mentions this
increase of grace in the sinner who has been justified by his con­
trition and desire for the sacrament:

And it should be held in like manner with regard to
confession joined to absolution, that through a desire of
the penitent which precedes confession, he is freed from
guilt; afterwards in the act of confession and absolution
his grace is increased; and remission of sins is also
granted, if the preceding sorrow for sins was not suf­
ficient for contrition, and if there is then present no
obstacle to grace.”
In the case of the venial sinner, this increase in grace is the
main effect of the sacrament, and through it he receives remission
for his venial sin. Thus the Sacrament of Penance which is a
sacrament of the dead is used as a sacrament of the living. The
purpose in its reception is not the reception of first grace, but
second grace.
This use of the sacrament is easily justified in this manner.
The sacrament was instituted with sin as its object. It is sin as
” Merkelbach, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 399; S. T., 3, q. 65, a. 1, ad 8.
™ S. T., 3, Suppl., q. 10, a. 1, in corp.:
Et similiter dicendum est de confessione adiuncta absolutioni, quod se­
cundum quod in voto poenitentis praecessit, a culpa liberavit; postmodum
autem in actu confessionis et absolutionis gratia augetur; et etiam remissio peccatorum daretur, si praecedens dolor de peccatis non sufficiens
ad contritionem fuisset, et ipse tunc obicem gratiae non praeberet.

i
1

Remedies for Venial Sin

j
i
t
ΐ

j

■
J
I
p
j

p
[j

!

91

committed, and not, as not-remitted, that is the object of this
sacrament. Now venial sin is truly sin, and as such it is the ob­
ject of this sacrament. Entering into the sacrament itself, the acts
of the penitent, in the more common opinion, constitute the quasi­
matter of this sacrament rather than the sin itself. Now, for any
sin the penitent can exercise the act of sorrow an unlimited num­
ber of times, and each time this act of sorrow would be sufficient
for the valid reception of this sacrament. In like manner, the
valid reception of this sacrament does not necessarily imply the
reception of first grace. It is a necessary effect, however, since
this is a sacrament, that grace be conferred when the matter and
form are posited and there is no obstacle to grace. Thus the use of
Penance for an increase of grace is a correct use of the sacrament,
and its use for the remission of venial sin only, in the case of a
penitent who is in grace, is a correct use of the sacrament.
■

-

One of the problems connected with the confession of venial
sins by one in the state of grace is this. In the Sacrament of
Penance the penitent must make a formal act of sorrow and must
manifest this act in some manner. Now, the common opinion is
that attrition remits venial sin apart from the sacrament, and
since in confession this act must be made before the granting of
absolution, it would appear that venial sin, even though it is a
secondary object of this sacrament, is never remitted by it except
in the case where the recipient has both mortal and venial sin on
his soul. With regard to this difficulty Merkelbach says :

Venial sins are very frequently not taken away im­
mediately by the Sacrament of Penance, since the ma­
jority are already remitted by the act of sorrow which
precedes absolution; but then they are again condoned
by the absolution in the same manner as mortal sins
which were previously remitted; at times, however, it
may happen that they are not remitted before the ab­
solution: 1. If they are joined to mortal sins, since then
they will be remitted at the same time as the mortal
sin; 2. when the sorrow is sufficient for the remission
of some venial sins, but not for the remission of all of

92

The Remission of Venial Sin
the venial sins: then the grace conferred by the sacra­
ment can arouse sorrow which will suffice for the re­
mission of those not already forgiven.”

Worthy of note in this passage is the view of Merkelbach,
which he expresses in passing, that even in the case of venial sins
remitted through the Sacrament of Penance, they are remitted
mediately, that is, through the sorrow which is aroused by the
infusion of grace. This is consonant with his view, in following
Saint Thomas, that all of the sacraments remit venial sin me­
diately.

De Lugo, in his defence of the necessity of a proportion of at­
trition to the venial sins remitted by it outside of the sacraments,
an opinion denied by Merkelbach, mentions the problem under
consideration:
I hold, in the fourth place, that attrition with the
Sacrament of Baptism, Penance, and Extreme Unction,
suffices for the remission of all of the venial sins to which
the attrition extends, but it is not necessary that the act
of attrition posited will always take away all venial sins.
The basic supposition of Vasquez proves this conclusion
for me, for if once an act of attrition is posited, the guilt
of venial sin is immediately remitted; then the guilt of
” Merkelbach, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 460:
Peccata venialia saepius non tolluntur immediate a Sacramento Poeniten­
tiae, quia plerumque iam sunt remissa actu contritionis praecedente ab­
solutionem; at tunc rursus absolutione condonantur eodem modo ac pec­
cata mortalia iam antea dimissa; aliquando tamen fit ut non deleantur
ante absolutionem: 1) si coniuncta sunt peccatis mortalibus, quia tunc
simul cum eis remittuntur; 2) si contritio sit sufficiens ad aliquorum sed
non ad omnium venialium remissionem; tunc gratia a sacramento collata
excitare potest ad contritionem sufficientem de aliis non remissis.
Although Merkelbach denies the need of attrition of a certain intensity
for the remission of certain venial sins, in effect he agrees with De Lugo.
For he admits here that at times the sorrow is not sufficient for remission,
and that it becomes so only as an effect of the sacrament. It should be
noted that in such a case there must be attrition truly present for other
venial sins, or sins which have been previously remitted, since this is ne­
cessary for the validity of the sacrament.

Remedies for Venial Sin ·

93

venial sin would never be removed through the Sacra­
ment of Penance: for its remission is already presup­
posed through the preceding act of attrition: to say,
then, that venial sin is never remitted in the Sacrament
of Penance, except when it is joined to a mortal sin,
would seem to be contrary to the belief of the faithful,
who utilize the remedy of frequent confession to secure
the remission of venial sins; and consequently they think
that this sacrament has a certain effectiveness for the
remission of these sins, that it is a useful means, and
that it has power which is proportionate to the achieve­
ment of this end__ "
The solution to this difficulty, according to De Lugo, is the
fact that, while attrition is sufficient for the remission of venial
sin, even apart from the sacraments, for some venial sins the
posited act of attrition is not sufficient, whether from lack of
intensity, or from imperfection in motivation, for their remission
without the power of the sacrament. This opinion is opposed at
some length by Merkelbach:

There is not required attrition of a determined in­
tensity or grade for the achieving of the remission of
venial sin apart from the Sacrament of Penance, as is
held by many recent authors following Lugo, who say
that attrition will not suffice for the removal of every
’* De Lugo, op. cit., De Poenitentia, Disp. 9, sect. 2, no. 29:
Dico quarto: licet attritio cum sacramento baptismi, poenitentiae, et ex­
tremae unctionis sufficiat ad remissionem omnium venialium, de quibus
est attritio, sed tamen extra sacramentum non est necesse, quod posita
attritione tollantur semper omnia venialia. Hanc conclusionem probat
mihi fundamentum P. Vasquez nam si posita attritione, statim tollitur
culpa venialis; ergo per sacramentum poenitentiae nunquam remittitur
culpa venialis; jam enim praesupponitur remissa per attritionem praece­
dentem: dicere , enim, quod nunquam remittantur in sacramento poeni­
tentiae, nisi quando conjunguntur cum peccato mortali, videtur esse con; tra sensum fidelium, qui ad obtinendam eorum remissionem utuntur re­
medio frequentis confessionis; et per consequens concipiunt illud sacra­
mentum habere aliquam efficaciam in ordine , ad expianda ea peccata,
esseque medium utile, et proportionatum ad eum finem obtinendum...

94

The Remission of Venial Sin

venial sin outside of the Sacrament of Penance, but for
fewer or more according to its higher motive, its greater
intensity and duration, and the good works to which it
is joined. For a) every, even minimal, act of contrition
for a venial sin, if it is sincere, is a withdrawal of the
will from the venial sin, as has been said (no. 457) ; b)
venial sin is not opposed to a certain intensity or grada­
tion of charity, since it neither takes away from nor les­
sens the habit of charity to which it is not opposed;
c) just as a minimal act of perfect contrition suffices for
the remission of all mortal sins, so a minimal act of im­
perfect contrition elicited with the help of grace suffices
for the remission of all venial sins.

Nor is the common belief of the faithful who confess
their venial sins in order to secure remission for them,
opposed to this doctrine: for they do this, just as for
mortal sins which have already been remitted, for a more
certain and full remission, and as a precaution against
a relapse into sin; or preferably, they believe that the
sacrament has an effectiveness for the remission of
venial sins without knowing precisely of what nature
this effectiveness is.15
ra Merbelbach, op. cit., vol. 3, no. 460:
Hine non requiritur attritio determinatae intensitatis vel gradus ad obti­
nendam remissionem peccati venialis extra sacramentum Poenitentiae, uti
tenent multi recentiores cum Lugo, qui aiunt attritionem non sufficere ad
delenda quaecumque venialia extra sacramentum Poenitentiae, sed ad
pauciora vel plura secundum quod sit ex meliore motivo, cum maiore intensitate vel duratione, aut cum plurubus bonis operibus. Etenim a)
omnis enim minima contritio de peccato veniali, si sit sincera, est re­
tractatio eius, ut dictum est (n. 457); b) peccatum veniale non opponi­
tur determinatae intensitati seu gradui charitatis quia nihil aufert nec
minuit de charitatis habitu, cui non opponitur; c) sicut minima contritio
perfecta sufficit ad remissionem omnium peccatorum mortalium, ita mini­
ma contritio imperfecta ex gratia facta sufficit ad remissionem omnium
venialium.
Nec huic doctrinae obstat sensus communis fidelium qui peccata con­
fitentur ad obtinendam venialium remissionem: id enim faciunt, sicut pro
peccatis mortalibus remissis, ad certiorem remissionem ac pleniorem at­
que contra relapsum; ve) potius credunt sacramentum efficaciam habere ad

Remedies for Venial Sin

95

The point of comparison between the remission of all mortal
sins by an act of perfect contrition and the remission of all venial
sins by an act of imperfect contrition does not seem acceptable.
There is, after all, an inner nexus of all mortal sins in their aver­
sion from God, and it is just this aversion which is formally
opposed to even a minimal act of perfect contrition. There is no
such inner nexus among venial sins, and so one can be remitted
even as another is being committed. However, the possibility must
be granted that all the venial sins of which a person is guilty
may be remitted by one act of attrition which includes them all.
De Lugo would not deny this, if the act were of sufficient in­
tensity and based on adequate motivation.
Now, if there is any act of the will which is a true withdrawal
of the will from the venial sin, or simply, when attrition is truly
■present for any venial sin, it is, in the more common opinion, re­
mitted. It is true that because of stronger conversion of the will
in certain venial sins the required withdrawal will require greater
effort. However, this withdrawal must be effected before the sin
can be remitted. Now this greater effort, and hence the required
attrition, may not be present in the soul prior to the reception of
the impetus to an act of fervor which is given through the infusion
of grace resulting from the sacrament Thus the opinion of De
Lugo seems to be the better one on this point. With regard to
the sins for which the penitent does not have adequate attrition,
or simply, does not have attrition, the sacrament would effect
remission if there is no actual adherence of the will to the sin.
This comes close to the view of Galtier:
remissionem venialium quin praecise cogitent qualis illa sit.
This assumption of Merkelbach as to the reason for confession of venial
sins by the faithful seems entirely gratuitous; his second assumption ap­
pears closer to the truth. It is interesting to note that in the first para­
graph he uses “attritio” until he lists his arguments. In the first argument
he uses “contritio" and as the statement stands no author would disagree.
In no. 457, to which he refers, he states; “Atqui omnis contritio seu dis­
plicentia etiam imperfecta et minima, dummodo sit vera et sincera, pec­
catum veniale sufficienter retractat,...” So it can be assumed that con­
tritio imperfecta is intended here as it is used in his third argument.

%

The Remission of Venial Sin

... it is probable that for the remission of venial sins
through the power of the sacrament, attrition is not re­
quired, but the absence of an impediment, such as the
actual adherence of the will in this sin, suffices for their
remission; so it would follow that venial sins for which
the penitent did not have attrition, and which, therefore,
would not have been remitted by the act of the peni­
tent, would be remitted through the power of the sacra­
ment ..."
The sin for which the penitent had no attrition before re­
ception of the sacrament would be remitted by the attrition which
is the result of the sacrament. This opinion of Galtier would be
too lax if it were interpreted to mean that there would be no ne­
cessity for attrition in the Sacrament of Penance when venial sins
are to be remitted. It must be admitted that the sacrament does
confer grace and that this infusion of grace can arouse within
the recipient acts of fervent charity. Now these acts could remit
venial sins for which the penitent had neither actual adherence
nor actual attrition at the moment of confession. In such a case
the sins would not have been submitted to the power of the keys
and so would not have,required an act of formal penance. Their
remission would come as a result of the infusion of grace from
the sacrament. In this case, and in any case where the venial sin
is remitted through the power of this sacrament, the remission
takes place mediately, that is, through the act of fervor or of sor­
row which is the consequence of the infusion of grace which is
the direct and immediate effect of the sacrament." With the ve­
nial sins for which the penitent has no attrition should be in­
cluded those venial sins which are not mentioned in confession or
included in the act of contrition before confession, these would
be remitted if there is no obstacle on the part of the penitent.
™ Galtier, op. cit., no. 458:
. . . probabile est ad remissionem peccati venialis vi sacramenti non re­
quiri attritionem sed sufficere absentiam obicis, qui esset actualis adhaesio
tali peccato; hinc autem sequitur peccata venialia de quibus quis non
habuerit attritionem, quaeque proinde nondum remissa essent ex opere
operantis, posse remitti ex opere operato ...
” S. T., 3, q. 87, a. 2, and 3, in corp.; See also note 3 on this chapter.

Remedies for Venial Sin

97

Along with the increase of sanctifying grace and the exciting
of acts of sorrow the Sacrament of Penance aids the venial sinner
by the remission of part of the temporal punishment due to his
sins, and especially by sacramental grace through which the sin­
ner is helped to avoid repetition of his sins. In the case of venial
sin this can be of great import since venial sins are of themselves
dispositive to mortal sins. All of these reasons argue for the fre­
quent confession of venial sins, and all of these effects are the
results of the intrinsic power of the sacrament itself.

EFFECTS OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE
EX OPERE OPERANTIS
Now, there are other effects which come from the confession
of venial sins, although they do not come from the action of the
sacrament. The Sacrament of Penance is a tool to be used for
spiritual progress even apart from its sacramental power. Thus
it is a powerful means for the gaining of self knowledge. The
examination of conscience which precedes every confession neces­
sarily aids in this knowledge, and the direction of the confessor
may also aid in the exposure of dangerous Weaknesses. Frequent
confession is the only opportunity in most cases for the penitent
to receive the personal spiritual guidance and instruction neces­
sary for spiritual progress. The humiliation which is inherent to
every confession is helpful to the penitent, as are the specific acts
of sorrow which he must perform as part of the sacrament. All
of these benefits are added to the great benefit which comes to
the soul through its mysterious union with Christ in the intrinsic
operation of the sacrament. However, to gain these added bene­
fits more than the bare minimum of instruction is necessary for
the faithful. They should be taught to seek direction in the con­
fessional, to present to the priest not a catalogue of real or ima­
gined faults, but rather those faults into which they more fre­
quently fall and against which they sincerely wish to make
progress. They should be instructed to seek in their examination
of conscience not only the superficial fault, but also the deeper
fault which was the motivation for the act. Above all there should
be aroused in those who come frequently to confession a desire

98

The Remission of Venial Sin

for spiritual perfection. If these aims were added to the practice
of frequent confession, the plea of Pope Pius XII would be heard
and the Mystical Body would be made strong. Yet, even when
these added things are not done, the essential effects of the sacra­
ment are still achieved, and this in itself is sufficient reason for
the frequent confession of venial sins.
In his work; Principles of Sacramental Theology, Leeming
holds the following:
The meaning of the words of absolution, according to
a sound opinion, is, first of all, a reconciliation with the
Church, which is efficacious of reconciliation with God.
Whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed
also in heaven’, seems to indicate that the loosing upon
earth is prior to the loosing in heaven, at least in logical
dependence. Evidence as to the words which in the an­
cient Church were used for what we now call ‘absolution’
indicates that reconciliation with the Church was pri­
marily envisaged, through which came reconciliation with
God.”

Now, granting this opinion, in spite of the problems which exist
in the early history of Penance, and the confusion of excom­
munication and its absolution so often with serious sin and its
absolution, difficulties can be anticipated with regard to the con­
fession of venial sins. This is especially true since the union of
charity which perfects the union of member with the Church is
not affected by venial sin, and so the role of absolution as a re­
conciliation with the church presents a difficulty. Thus:
The custom of confessing venial sins needs more
theoretical justification than is often suggested; for there
is some obscurity about the precise effect of the absolu­
tion ex opere operato...”

And his solution to the difficulty, following Mersch:”
" Leeming, Bernard, S.J., Principies of Sacramental Theology (Newman, West­
minster, 1956) p. 361, 362.
" Ibid., p. 365.
" Mersch, E., (Kelly, J., trans.) The Whole Christ, (Bruce, Milwaukee, 1938).

Remedies for Venial Sin

99

Hence a venial sin, in so much as it is against God,
is against the Church, and, although it can be forgiven
by good deeds other than confession, nevertheless is
most appropriately confessed in order that the Church
which was offended in its member may give reconcilia­
tion and forgiveness to that member.”

It can be granted that the first meaning of absolution is recon­
ciliation with the Church, and this would coincide with the prime
object of this sacrament Though it must be emphasized that
even the serious sinner remains a member of the Church, the
Mystical Body, and so the absolution and reconciliation cannot
be a readmission into the Church. However, it is difficult to
see how this interpretation of absolution extends to the secondary
object of this sacrament. A diminution of the fervor of charity,
in the sense of Saint Thomas, could scarcely be a lessening of
even the perfection of union to the Church. It would seem that
the theoretical difficulty arises mostly from this interpretation of
absolution. This view is of interest here only in so far as it
touches on venial sin, and, without further justification, it would
seem unacceptable in the case of venial sins.
In Mystici Corporis, Pope Pius XII says; “Not without the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit was this practice introduced into
the church.”” The introduction of the frequent confession of venial
sin into the church was a gradual process and its history is some­
what obscure. Most of the texts concerning Penance in the early
church mention the Capital Sins of; apostasy, murder, and adul­
tery; and the difficult class of minor offences, in relation to the
major three offences, which would still, in our terminology, be
serious or mortal sin. Mention of venial sin is usually not in con­
nection with confession. Thus Tixeront says in commenting on
Ambrose;

Saint Ambrose merely distinguishes between the de­
licta leviora and the delicta graviora. Sinners atone for
the latter in public penance which is performed only
“ Leeming, op. cit., p. 366.
“ Mystici Corporis, translation and edition cited, no. 103.

100

The Remission of Venial Sin

once; the former must be atoned for daily. How? Prob­
ably by expiating them by means of good works; ‘Bonis
operibus saepe relevantur’*
Likewise in the works of Saint Augustine there is this same
attitude on the manner in which these light sins are to be re­
mitted:
I do not claim that you will live without sin; for there
are venial sins without which this life cannot be lived.
Baptism was instituted for all sins; prayer was instituted
for those light sins without which we cannot live. What
is this prayer? ‘And forgive us our debts as we forgive
our debtors.’ {Mt. 612). We are cleansed once by Bap­
tism, we are cleansed each day by prayer. However, do
not commit those sins for which it would be necessary
to separate you from the Body of Christ: do not allow
such a thing to be among you. Those whom you see
doing penance have committed crimes, adultery, or some
monstrous deed; and for this they do penance. For if
their sins were light the daily prayer would have been
sufficient to remit them."

And further in the same sermon:
Then there are three manners in which sins are for­
given in the Church; in Baptism, in prayer, and in the
“ Tixeront, Joseph, Bistory of Dogmas (Herder, St. Louis, 1914) vol. 2, p. 320.
“ Sermo ad Catechumenos, cap. 7, M. L., 40, 636:
Non vobis dico quia sine peccato hic vivetis; sed sunt venialia, sine quibus
vita ista non est. Propter omnia peccata Baptismus inventus est; propter
levia, sine quibus esse non possumus, oratio inventa. Quid habet oratio?
‘Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris.’
(Mt. 6:12) Semel abluimur Baptismate, quotidie abluimur oratione. Sed
nolite illa committere, pro quibus necesse est ut a Christi corpore sepa­
remini: quod absit a vobis. Illi enim quos videtis agere poenitentiam,
scelera commiserunt, aut adulteria, aut aliqua facta immania: inde agunt
poenitentiam. Nam si levia peccata ipsorum essent, ad haec quotidiana
oratio delenda sufficeret.

Remedies for Venial Sin

101

humility of major Penance, however, God does not
forgive any sins, save for the Baptized.®
Watkins’ judgment on the confession of venial sins in the early
church:
The sins known as venial in the moral theology of
modern times, the offences into which the just man falls
seven times a day, are not regarded by any ancient
writer as the proper matter for the exercise of formal
penance.®

This conclusion agrees with that of O’Donnell :
But the chief explanation is, without a doubt, found in
the fact that Christians generally, never dreamt of un­
dergoing public penance, whether strict or not, for sins
which were generally recognized as venial. Though the
period with which I am concerned offers little explicit
testimony to this fact, the impression conveyed by the
records is that the faithful looked on penance, not as a
devotional practice, or as a method of attaining greater
personal perfection; but merely as a means to escape
from mortal sin and its consequences."
In speaking of the history of private penance, Tixeront says :
... in the first half of the sixth century, private penance
was practiced in southern Gaul and probably in Italy.
Two facts contributed to spread and strengthen the prac­
tice. The first is the foundation of the Benedictine order
and the drawing up of its rule (about 480-543). The
influence of that rule was constantly felt outside the
Λ Ibid., cap. 8:
Ergo tribus modis dimittuntur peccata in Ecclesia; in Baptismate, in ora­
tione, in humilitate majore (majoris) poenitentiae, tamen Deus non di­
mittit peccata, nisi baptizans.
“ Watkins, Oscar, Λ History of Penance (Longmans, Green, London, 1920)
vol. 1, p. 415.
" O’Donnell, M. J., Penance in the Early Church (Gill, Dublin, 1907) p. 82.
See also:· Jungmann, Josef A., Public Worship, translated by Howell, Clif­
ford (Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn., 1957) pp. 77-81.

102

The Remission oj Venial Sin
monasteries for which it was composed. Now, it de­
manded of the monks frequent accusations and confes­
sions . . . The other fact, which was more directly in­
fluential, was the importation, by Saint Columbanus,
into France and Italy, of the British customs concern­
ing private penance.88

Moreover, the disciples of Saint Columbanus did not
remain within the walls of their monasteries; as they
became bishops, abbots, missionaries, and pastors of
souls, many of them introduced the customs of their
order in the exercise of their functions and duties. Thus
it happened that private penance, which first appeared
in France and Italy in the fifth century, was definitely
organized during the seventh century, and became the
ordinary and normal practice, public penance being for
the exceptionally scandalous and revolting sins. During
the eight century, penitentials were current everywhere.88
Accepting, then, this account of the gradual change to private,
and hence more frequent confession, it is but a step for the con­
fession, even frequently, of venial sins alone. Still the term
frequent would not be taken in our sense of monthly or even
weekly confession. In the fourteenth century, when the cause of
repeated confession was being furthered by the mendicant orders,
Pope Benedict XI approved this exercise and advised them “in
their sermons exhort that they confess to their own priests at
least once a year, declaring without doubt this pertains to the
advancement of souls.””
“ Tixeront, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 386.
• Ibid., p. 388. See also: Galtier, Paul, S.J., L’Eglise et la Remission des
Péchés aux Premiers Siècles (Beauchesne, Paris, 1932) p. 492.

" Constitution: Inter Cunctas Sollicitudines, Benedict XI, Feb. 17, 1304, E.S.,
no. 470.
. . . districte iniungimus, ut Fratres (Praedicatores et Minores) ipsi confitentes attente moneant, et in suis praedicationibus exhortentûr, quod
suis sacerdotibus saltem semel confiteantur in anno, asserendo, id àd ani­
marum profectum procul dubio pertinere.

Remedies for Venial Sin

103

Amann in his article on Penance in the Dictionnaire de Thé­
ologie Catholique, has this statement about the spread of fre­
quent confession:
Thus, apart from the Lenten confession, which seems
to be definitely included in the practice of the times,
there were certainly some confessions which we would
call confessions of devotion. These were multiplied to­
wards the end of the twelfth century; certain monasteries
Were able to exercise, from that point of view, a muni­
ficent influence, this is the case, most certainly, with
the abbey of Saint-Victor at the gates of Paris. But it
was necessary to wait, we think, for the appearance of
the two great mendicant orders at the beginning of the
thirteenth century, to see this practice become general.
The Preachers and the Minors have played, in their ef­
fect on the spread of frequent confession, the same role
as that played by the Celtic monks and the AngloSaxon monks in the spread of private penance."

At the time of the Council of Trent, as has been seen, the con­
fession of venial sins was the practice among the pious persons
in the Church.” In the eighteenth century Pope Pius VI spoke
out in favor of the frequent confession of venial sins.” This note
of frequency was not mentioned in the statement of Trent al­
though it was probably intended. From this time on, the practice
“ Vacant, A., Mangenot, E., Amann, S., Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique,
(Letouzey, Paris, 1933) vol. 12, part one, Penitence, Amann, E., col. 930:
Ainsi, en dehors de la confession quadragésimale, qui semble être entrée
définitivement dans les moeurs, il y a certainement des confessions que
nous pourrions appeler de dévotion. Elles ont dû se multiplier vers la fin
du Xlle siècle; certains monastères ont pu exercer, à ce point de vue,
une influence bienfaisante, c’est le cas, très certainement, pour l’abbaye
de Saint-Victor, aux portes de Paris. Mais il faut attendre, pensons-nous,
l’apparition des deux grands ordres mendiants du debut du XlIIe siècle
pour voir cette pratique se généraliser. Prêcheurs et mineurs ont joué,
par rapport à la diffusion de la confession fréquente, le rôle que les
moines celtes et anglo-saxons avaient joué dans la propagation de la
pénitence privée.
“ E.S., no. 899.
“ E. S., no. 1539.

104

The Remission of Venial Sin

of frequent confession of venial sins is general. The encyclicals
of Pope Pius XII confirm this practice and encourage its con­
tinuance. Thus the full utility of the Sacrament of Penance as a
means of spiritual progress has gradually unfolded in the Church,
It is not the only means for the remission of venial sin, but it is
the most effective of the ordinary means which are available to
the faithful, for it insures the remission of the sin itself, and of at
least part of the temporal punishment due to the sin. As in all
of the sacraments, sacramental grace is given, and the purpose of
this aid in the case of Penance is the avoidance of future sin.
Here lies the great advantage of Penance over other methods of
remission, it gives a definite aid for the avoiding of future sin
thus looking not only to the past in remission, but also to the
future in prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) For the remission of venial sin sorrow is always neces­
sary. This sorrow includes a hatred of the sin, and a displeasure
at its effect, with a motion of the will to eradicate the sin through
an act of the fervor of charity. This sorrow need only be implicit
except in the confession of venial sin, and there, due to the re­
quirements of the sacrament, the sorrow must be explicit.
(2) For the remission of venial sin the penitent must be in
the state of sanctifying grace. Thus there can be no simultaneous
remission of mortal and venial sins. The remission of mortal sin
must always precede the remission of venial sin.
(3 ) Every infusion of sanctifying grace can effect the remis­
sion of venial sin, and every act which is remissive of venial sin
will be accompanied by an increase of sanctifying grace.

(4) The immediate cause of the remission of venial sin is an
act of the fervor of charity. This act is necessary as it alone is
formally opposed to the venial sin. The eliciting of this act is
the purpose of all means which are used to effect the remission
of venial sin.

(5) All means which can be utilized to effect the remission
of venial sin do so mediately, as they all achieve their effect
through the medium of an elicited act of the fervor of charity.

(6) While no sacrament was instituted for the primary pur­
pose of remitting venial sin, all of the sacraments do remit venial
sin, since every infusion of sanctifying grace is remissive of venial
sin through the act of charity which is consequent to every in­
fusion of grace.
(7) Certain sacraments have special efficacy for the remission
of venial sins:
Baptism remits the entire temporal punishment as well as the
sin itself.

105

106

The Remission of Venial Sin

Extreme Unction removes venial sin and probably the temporal
punishment due while the penitent is in danger of death, thus
preparing him for entrance into heaven.
The Eucharist has as an effect the eliciting of an act of charity
as well as the increase of the habit of charity, and so it has as an
effect 'the remission of venial sin in a twofold manner; through
the act of charity which it directly effects, and through the act of
charity which is always consequent upon an increase in habitual
grace. Emphasis should be placed on the Eucharist as the daily
remedy for daily faults.
The Sacrament of Penance has as a secondary effect the re­
mission of venial sins. From the long practice in the Church of
not confessing venial sins and the present practice of not re­
quiring integral confession of venial sins, it is evident that venial
sin, while sufficient matter, is not necessary matter for the sacra­
ment. Many benefits come from the confession of venial sins;
sacramental grace is given as an aid in avoiding all sin, explicit
sorrow for venial sin is aroused, an examination of conscience is
made, there is the humiliation of confessing sins, and there is the
opportunity for spiritual consultation and direction. While the
frequent confession of venial sin is not of general obligation, it
is generally desireable for spiritual progress.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sources
j

*

Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Commentarium Officiale, Romae, 1909Codex luris Canonici Pii X Pontificis Maximi iussu digestus Benedicti Papae XV
auctoritate promulgatus, Praefatione, Pontium Annotatione et Indice Analytico-Alphabetico ab Emo Petri Card. Gasparri Auctus, Westminster:
Newman Press, 1949
Denzinger, H, Bannwart, C, Umberg, J, Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum

et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum, ed. 27, Barcelona: Herder
and Co., 1951
Migne, Jacques Paul, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, 221 vols.,
Parisiis, 1864-1884.

Reference Works

ή

*

Aertnys, Joseph, Theologia Moralis, recognitum et auctum a C. Damen, ed. 16,
2 vols., Romae: Marietti, 1947
Albert the Great, St., Opera Omnia, ed. Lugdunensis, 38 vols., Parisiis: Vives,
1890-1899.
Alphonsus M. de Ligorio, St, Theologia Moralis, ed. Gaude, 4 vols, Romae:
Vatican Press, 1905-1912.
Aquinas, St. Thomas, Opera Omnia, ed. Vives, 34 vols, Parisiis, 1871-1880
Quaestiones Disputatae: De Malo, Vol XV
Summa Contra Gentiles, Vol. XII
Summa Theologica, Vols. I-VI
Armas, Gregory, La Moral de San Agustin, Madrid: Asilo de Huerfanos, 1955
Augustine, St, Contra Faustum Manichaeum, M.L., XLII
Billot, Ludovicus, De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, ed. 7, 2 vols, Romae, 1939
----------De Personali et Originali Peccato, Romae, 1924
Billuart, Carolus, Cursus Theologiae, ed. 9, 10 vols, Paris: Lecoffre, 1886
----------Summa Sancti Thomae, 8 vols, Parisiis: Palme, 1876
Tractatus De Peccatis, Vol. II
Bonaventure, St, Opera Omnia, 10 vols. Ad Claras Aquas, 1882-1902
Boyer, Charles, Tractatus de Sacramento Poenitentiae et de Extrema Unctione,
Romae: apud Universitat. Gregorian, 1942
Calcagno, Francis, Philosophia Scholastica, 3 vols, Naples: M. d’Auria, 1938
Cappello, Felix, De Sacramentis, Tractatus Canonico-Moralis, Vol. I, ed. 3, 1938,
Vol. II, ed. 5, 1947, Vol. III, ed. 3, 1949, Romae: Marietti
Cathrein, Victor, Philosophica Moralis, ed. 14, Friburgi Brisgoviae: Herder &
Co, 1927

107