The Catholic University of America
Studies in Sacred Theology
(Second Series)
No. 6

Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth
and Thirteenth Centuries
BY THE

REV. JOSEPH A. SPITZIG., A.B., S.T.L.

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

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PRESS
WASHINGTON, D. C.
1947

Nihil Obstat:

FRANCIS J. CONNELL, C.SS.R., S.T.D.,
Censor Deputatus.

Imprimatur :
EDWARD F. HOBAN, S.T.D.,
Episcopus Cleveland ensis.
Die 12 Februarii, 1947.

COPYRIGHT, 1947, BY

The Catholic University

of

America Press, Inc.

MURRAY & HEISTER—WASHINGTON, D. C.
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DOMINO NOSTRO JESU CHRISTO
“ QUI . . . PRO NOBIS DEO PATRI
SATISFECIT/'
C. Trid., Sess. VI, Cap. 7.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

Foreword: Statement of the Subject ....

.

ix

...............................................

.

xi

I.

The Nature of Satisfaction
Article I. Notion ......
Article II. Satisfaction for Sin
Article III. Works of Satisfaction
Article IV. The Effects of Satisfaction

.
.
.
.
.

1
1
2
7
9

II.

The Present Doctrine on Satisfaction
Article I. Necessity
.....
Article II. Possibility of Satisfactory Works
Article III. The Conditions of Satisfaction
Article IV. Vicarious Human Satisfaction .

. 10
. 10
. 16
. 23
. 27

III.

Sacramental Satisfaction ....
Article I. Notion..............................................
Article II. Obligation of the Confessor
Article III. Obligation of Penitents

.
.
.
.

29
29
31
36

IV.

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century .
Peter Abelard .......
Hugh of Saint-Victor.....................................
Robert Pullen
.
.
.
Peter Lombard
......
Peter of Poitiers..............................................
Peter Cantor .......
Alain de Lille .......
Peter of Blois .......

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

38
38
48
53
67
85
90
99
106

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century
Alexander of Hales
.....
Saint Bonaventure ......
Saint Albert the Great .....
Saint Thomas Aquinas .....
John Duns Scotus..............................................
vii

.
.
.
.
.
.

110
110
125
137
150
166

List of Abbreviations
CHAPTER

V.

/ ; }

..St

i./ '

Â’ ' ■

v’’i
VI.

Contents
Conclusions

Bibliography
Biographical Note
Index

PAGE
. 178

. 183

FOREWORD

. 189

. 190

The Psalmist sounds the keynote for any consideration of the
forgiveness of sin when he states that “ all the ways of the
Lord are mercy and truth.” 1 God’s attributes of mercy and
justice are involved both in the extra-sacramental and in the
sacramental remission of sin. Even in the fulfillment of sacra­
mental penance, in which God’s justice is principally operative,
the mercy of God supplies what man is unable to perform.
The present study is not an explicit review of these two divine
attributes but rather an investigation of the teaching of the twelfth
and thirteenth century theologians on sacramental satisfaction, in
which God’s mercy and justice toward men play the principal
roles.
There is a certain amount of interest in any study of the de­
velopment of a doctrine through these two centuries of theological
growth. The^twelf|lji_.and.,itiiirteenth centuries form the link .
between the early teaching of the Church on the one hand, and
on the other the present doctrine as crystallized, in this case, by
the Council of Trent. It is of great interest to inspect the link
in order to discover what uniformity marked the theological
teaching of those days.
The interest in such a study of sacramental satisfaction is in­
tensified by two facts : ( 1 ) the Protestant denial of the necessity
and value of satisfaction and satisfactory works; (2) perhaps as
a result of that denial, a present-day reluctance on the part of
man to embrace voluntarily any sort of pain, even as a just
punishment for sin.
In the title of the study we have used the term sacramental
penance as more in keeping with popular terminology. In pre­
senting the doctrine of the theologians, however, we shall use
the technical terms satisfaction and sacramental satisfaction as
they appear in the various sources consulted.
IPs. 24:10.
ix

X

Foreword

For the purpose of greater understanding, a substantial sketch
of the present doctrine on satisfaction will be included. Follow­
ing the preliminary notions an investigation will be made into
the available original works of the principal theologians of the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
Two observations concerning the thesis should be made here.
First, we shall not attempt to include the doctrine as taught by
all the theologians of those two centuries for two reasons: (1)
many of the sources of the period are as yet unpublished ; (2) the
theologians who will be treated provide sufficient testimony for
the doctrine of the time.
Secondly, we do not maintain that the present work exhausts
the subject as treated by the theologians who will be considered.
Some of the sources available have not been edited according
to the modern standards of scholarship, and the doctrines found
in these sources may well take on new meanings or undergo
corrections when more critical editions appear. It may be added
that much effort was being directed toward the production of
critical editions of these works before the outbreak of World
War II. Modern theologians will be encouraged to know that
the work is proceeding in our own country and may well hope
that it is being continued also in Europe or that it will be quickly
resumed there when the blessings of peace have finally come.
The writer is pleased to extend his sincere gratitude to His
Excellency, the Most Reverend Joseph Schrembs, S.T.D., late
Archbishop-Bishop of Cleveland, and to His Excellency, the
Most Reverend Edward F. Hoban, S.T.D., Bishop of Cleveland,
for the privilege of an appointment to graduate research in
Sacred Theology; to the Reverend Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R.,
S.T.D., for his patient and detailed supervision in the prepara­
tion of the thesis ; to the Reverend Pascal P. Parente, S.T.D.,
Ph.D., for valuable critical suggestions and his approval of the

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CSEL—Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
DB—Denzinger, H.-Bannwart, C.-Umberg, I., Enchiridion Sym­
bolorum, Definitionum, et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et
Morum
DHGE—Baudrillart, A.-Vogt, A.-Rouziès, U., Dictionnaire
D’Histoire Et De Géographie Ecclésiastiqu,es
DTC—Vacant, A.-Mangenot, E., Dictionnaire de Théologie
Catholique
J—Rouët de Journel, M., Enchiridion Patristicum
K—Kirch, C., Enchiridion Fontium Historiae Ecclesiasticae
Antiquae
PG—Mignë, J. P., Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graeca
PL—Migne, J. P., Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina
ZKT—Zeitschrift fur Katholische Théologie

xi

CHAPTER I
THE NATURE OF SATISFACTION
Article I. Notion
The word satisfaction is derived from the Latin satisfacere.
As a term, it was known and used before it assumed a fixed
significance in theological language. An analysis of its usage
discovers the following meanings: 1
In a general way, from the very force of the Latin term, satis­
faction indicates every action by which a person does all that
he must do, or every action or operation which a person per­
forms as sufficient to attain an intended goal. This general sense
of doing as much as is required has been particularized by usage.
The usage in turn has been determined by the demands to be
met or the goals to be attained.
1. Satisfaction of a claim, a request, or an expectation, made
to a person or thing. Here a person performs all that is re­
quired for the fulfillment of the claim, request, or expectation.
There is no reference here necessarily to a creditor or to moral
guilt.
2. Satisfaction of a material debt. Here the usage is two­
fold: (a) satisfaction in the sense of actual full payment of
money to a creditor; (b) satisfaction in the sense of a sub­
stitute for payment. Because of this second sense, payment and
satisfaction are not necessarily convertible or interchangeable.
One who pays a debt certainly makes satisfaction ; but one who
makes satisfaction does not necessarily make payment. For ex­
ample, a debtor pays his creditor wrhen he gives him the exact
amount of money due. The same debtor, however, might satisfy
his creditor in any way in which he can placate him so that
he will not demand full payment, e.g., by inducing the creditor
1 Cf. Deneffe, “Das Wort Satisfactio,” ZKT, Vol. 43 (1919), ρρ.·158-175;
Forcellini, sub voce satisfacere, satisfactio.

1

2 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
to condone the balance of the debt on receipt of a partial pay­
ment.2
3. Satisfaction of a moral debt. Once again the usage is two­
fold. (a) In the case of an apparent or presumed wrong, a
person is said to offer satisfaction through a defense, a justifica­
tion, or an excuse, (b) In the case of a real or actual moral
guilt (offense, fault, wrong), the person who offends offers satis­
faction by compensating for the offense or injustice he inflicts
on another. Secular writers spoke of satisfaction in the sense
of compensation for a moral debt, e.g., compensation by a servant
for an offense against his master, compensation by a community
for an offense against the representative of another community.
The Fathers also used the term satisfaction in the sense of com­
pensation for a moral debt made to men, to spirits, to false gods,
to the Church, and especially to God.3 In addition to the general
notion of compensation for a moral debt made to God, theologians
explicitly began to distinguish satisfaction for guilt, satisfaction
as a punishment for sin, satisfaction as one of the parts of the
sacrament of Penance.4
4. (a) Vicarious satisfaction made by one person for another,
(b) The vicarious satisfaction of Jesus Christ for all mankind,
a use initiated by St. Anselm in the treatment of Redemption.5
Article II. Satisfaction for Sin
The notion of compensation for a debt and for an offense
2 Other examples would be satisfaction by bond, by security, by pledge.
Cf. Corpus luris Civilis, Vol. I (ed. 14a; Berlin: Weidmann, 1922), Digesta
(ed. Mommsen-Krueger), Lib. XIII, vii, 9-10; Lib. XX, vi, 6.
3 Cf. St. Gregory the Great, Epistolarum, Lib. IX, 5 (PL 77, 943) ;
Tertullian, De Poenitentia, cap. 5, n. 9 (ed. E. Preuschen, Tertullian, De
Poenitentia, De Pudicitia [in Sammlung . . . von Dr. G. Kriiger; Freiburg
im Breisgau: J. C. B. Mohr, 1891], p. 8, 6) ; Arnobius, Adversus Nationes,
Lib. 7, 6 (CSEL 4, 242, 3; PL 5, 1225); cf. ibid., 38 (CSEL 4, 271, 7;
PL 5, 1275) ; St. Augustine, Enchiridion, cap. 65 (PL 40, 263) ; Tertullian,
De Poenitentia, cap. 7, n. 14; cap. 8, n. 9 (Preuschen, op. cit., p. 13, 4;
p, 14, 11) ; St. Cyprian, De Lapsis, cap. 36 (CSEL 3, 1, 264, 5; PL 4, 494) ;
St. Leo the Great, Epistola 108, cap. 2 (PL 54, 1012).
4 Cf. Deneffe, op. cit., pp. 163-169.
5 Cur Deus Homo, Lib. 2, cap. 6 (PL 158, 404); Meditationes, 11 (PL
158, 765 A-B).

■··*·

The Nature of Satisfaction

3

should be retained and transferred to the sphere of man’s rela­
tions with Almighty God. In this connection, satisfaction for
sin is the reparation for sin, or that action which, by virtue of
its compensatory value, obtains the removal and forgiveness of
sin? A more complete definition theologically is: “Satisfaction is the action compensatory of” the injustice committed against
God through sin.” 7
1
In order to limit the field of consideration, it is necessary to
recall the notion of sin and the results of sin in man’s relations
with God.

Sin is a morally evil human act ; but since every human
act is a free act, and every evil act is against the rule
of morals which is the Divine Law, therefore sin is
usually defined as a free transgression of the law of
God.8
It may be further stated that a sin constitutes both an offense
and an injustice against God. An offense is something done
against the will of another. An injustice is a violation of the
right of another. Because every mortal sin is opposed to the
will of the Supreme Legislator and violates the strict right which
He has to man’s obedience and other expressions of homage, sin
of its very nature constitutes both an offense and an injustice
against God. Accordingly, every mortal sin “ gives to God the
motive of displeasure and the right to punish the sinner.” 8
In offending God man contracts a twofold debt which flows
from the sin:^the debt of guilt {reatus culpae} ‘and the debt of
punishment {reatus poenae). The debt of guilt is the obligation^
of undergoing the displeasure of God, which obligation arises
from the personal offense against God, and hence against His ;
6 Cf. P. Galtier, De Paenitentia (Paris: Beauchesne, 1931), p. 358, n. 469;
F. Cappello. De Sacramentis, Vol. II, De Poenitentia (ed. 3a; Turin:
Marietti, 1938), cap. 8, a. 1, p. 235, n. 292.
7 L. De San, Tractatus de Paenitentia (Bruges: Beyaert, 1899), p. 662, n.
871; cf. D. Prmnmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis, III (ed. 8a; Freiburg
ini Breisgau: Herder, 1936), p. 280, η. 391.
8 Noldin-Schmitt, Summa Theologiae Moralis (ed. 25a ; Innsbruck: F.
Rauch, 1937-1938), I, p. 285, η. 289, 1.
9 Ibid., ρρ. 286-287, η. 289, 2.

I

4 Sacramental Penance in the Tzvelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
friendship, inherent in every mortal sin. The debt of punish·; ment is the obligation of undergoing the punishment which God,
I as the author and guardian of the moral order, justly decrees
^against all who violate that order.
It is quite obvious that man, when he sins, opposes the moral
order and disobeys the Supreme Legislator. It is just as true
that, by sinning, man also averts himself from God. In this way
especially does man offend and inflict a personal injustice upon
God because he denies the honor due to and demanded by God
as a strict right. Thus the sinner becomes God’s enemy. Con/sequently, satisfaction for sin may be directed to the removal
1’of the debt of guilt (and the debt of eternal punishment) or to
The.removal of the debt of temporal punishment (which can re­
main after the guilt and eternal punishment have been remitted)?0
Satisfaction for the debt of guilt and the accompanying debt
of eternal punishment occurs when something is offered to God
by which the offense inflicted is repaired, or which is compensa­
tion and quasi-punishment for the offense.11

f

For he properly satisfies for an offense who presents to
the one offended that which he prizes as much as or
even more than he hates the offense.12
Such satisfaction cannot be made by mere man because of the
quasi-infinite malice of mortal sin as an offense against God.
Hence, satisfaction for the guilt of mortal sin demands the
atonement offered by a Divine Person. Jesus Christ, the GodMan, made such satisfaction for us. But in order that Christ’s
satisfaction may be applied in man’s behalf, man rnust have con­
trition. ^rlence man’s satisfaction for the guilt of mortal sin is
really contrition, which of itself (with the intention of receiv­
ing the sacrament), or together with the actual reception of the
sacrament of Penance (or Baptism in the case of an unbaptized
adult), is a proximate disposition to justification.13
10 Ci. De San, op. cit., p. 662, n. 871.
11 Galtier, op. cit., p. 358, n. 469, 2.
12 St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, III, q. .48, a. 2: “Ille enim proprie
satisfacit pro offensa qui exhibet offenso id quod aeque vel magis diligit quam
oderit offensam.”
33 Cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, cap. 4 (DB 897-898).

The Nature of Satisfaction

5

Satisfaction for the debt of temporal punishment occurs when
a penalty is voluntarily undertaken with the intention of acknowl­
edging and discharging the debt contracted, and thus restoring
4 the order of justice disrupted by sin. The stress on voluntariety
distinguishes satisfaction from mere objective expiation or pay­
ment of a debt such as is often demanded of an unwilling criminal
or delinquent debtor. In this latter sense, a convicted criminal
may suffer justice, but he does not perform satisfaction; similarly
a debtor may have compensation taken from his effects, but he
cannot be said to satisfy a just debt. In the same sense, souls
condemned to hell or confined to purgatory cannot be said to
make satisfaction, although they certainly suffer objective expia­
tion.14
St. Thomas brings out this distinction between satisfaction and
expiation quite clearly. He first lists various reasons why the
justice of God, even after remitting the guilt and eternal punish­
ment, obliges a penitent to temporal punishment for his past
sin. Then he adds:
If (man) of his own will exacts that punishment of
himself, by that act he is said to make satisfaction to
God, in so far as he seeks with labor and pain, by punishing himself for sin, the divinely instituted order, which
he had transgressed by sinning, seeking his own will.
If, however, he does not demand this punishment of
himself, since those things which are subject to divine
providence cannot remain disordered, this punishment
will be inflicted upon him by God ; nor will such pun­
ishment be called, satisfactory, since it will not be by
the choice of the one suffering it, but it will be called
purgatorial, because he will be, as it were, purged by
another doing the punishing, while whatever was inor­
dinate in him will be reduced to due order.15

y
/'

14 Cf. Galtier, op. cit., p. 358, n. 469, 2.
J5 St. Thomas, Summa, Contra Gentiles, III, 159: “ Quam quidem poenam
si (homo) propria voluntate a se exegerit, per hoc Deo satisfacere dicitur, in
quantum cum labore et poena ordinem divinitus institutum exsequitur, pro
peccato se puniendo, quem peccando transgressus fuerat, propriam voluntatem
sequendo. Si autem a se hanc poenam non exigat, quum ea quae divinae
providentiae subjacent inordinata remanere non possint, haec poena infligetur
ei a Deo; nec talis poena satisfactoria dicetur, quum non fuerit ex electione

6 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
Therefore the voluntary assumption or acceptance of some
punishment is of the very essence of all satisfaction. A man who
spontaneously chooses a penance, or who at least voluntarily
accepts one inflicted upon him, gives notice that he knows he
is a debtor to divine justice and that he desires to conform him­
self to that justice. God is certainly pleased with such a dis­
position. For God does not favor punishment for its ολνη sake,
but only because of the order of His justice which demands
punishment for transgressions. Hence God will· favor also the
recognition by man of that order of justice and the desire of
man to restore that order as far as he is able to do so. It is
by reason of such a voluntary disposition that God can and does
at times remit the temporal punishment due to sin, without im­
posing on the repentant sinner every last iota of punishment
(salispassio) ™
The present study is concerned with the satisfaction for the
temporal punishment due to sin, a debt which flows from the
injustice inflicted upon God through sin. For the present, more­
over, we shall speak only of satisfaction in general or extrasacramental satisfaction. As such, satisfaction is an act of the
virtue of penance and may be defined as the voluntary assump­
tion or acceptance of penal works in order to secure'the remission
of the temporal punishment ordinarily due to sin even after that
sin has been forgiven.17
Part of the equipment of the study of satisfaction is the dis­
tinction of the modes of satisfaction. Satisfaction is either de
condigno or de congruo.16
Satisfaction de condigno is that to which the remission of
temporal punishment is due out of justice, (a) Satisfaction is
patientis, sed dicteur purgatoria, quia alio puniente quasi purgabitur, dum
quidquid inordinatum fuit in eo ad debitum ordinem reducetur."
16GaItier, op. cit., p. 359, n. 470; cf. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica,
I-Π, q. 87, a. 6.
17 Cf. J. M. Hervé, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (ed. 18a-19a; Paris:
Berche et Pagis, 1935-1936), IV, p. 358, n. 302; Prümmer, op. cit., III, p.
280, n. 391; E. Hugon, Tractatus Dogmatici (Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1931),
Vol. Ill (ed. 6a), “De Poenitentia,” q. 4, a. 3, p. 600.
18 CT Hervé, op. cit., II, p. 583, n. 612; III, pp. 228-229, n. 209-210.

The Nature of Satisfaction

7

condign in strict justice (in rigore justitiae} when there is perfect
equality between the satisfactory work and the debt of punish­
ment. In such a case the one making satisfaction does not accept
any aid from the recipient of the satisfaction, but offers to the
recipient a work of satisfaction produced by his own powers
and not otherwise due. It is obvious that such condign satisfac­
tion in strict justice can have no place in any consideration or
relation between mere man and God. All man’s satisfaction is
made in virtue of God’s help and with gifts already under the
dominion of God and due to God by several titles.
(b) Condign satisfaction de condignitate, or simply condign
satisfaction, is that in which there is a true equality between the
work offered and the punishment due, but not between the one
making satisfaction and the one receiving it; yet, supposing the
aid and the acceptance of the recipient, the moral value of the
work is such as to satisfy adequately for the debt of punishment.
Satisfaction de congruo is that to which remission of temporal
punishment would correspond only because of the mercy or
liberality of the recipient; or, more strictly, where satisfaction
would secure remission out of friendship.
Condign satisfaction for the debt of temporal punishment will
be the primary object of the following considerations. Its con­
ditions can be verified in the relations between God and man.
Whether or not they are vertified will be discussed later.
Article III. Works of Satisfaction
In general it may be said that the works of satisfaction can be
reduced to three classes: prayer, almsgiving, and fasting. This
division is suitable for these reasons: 19
1. Satisfaction as an act is one in which man subtracts some­
thing from himself in honor of God. But man has only three
classes of goods with which he can part: those of the soul, those
of fortune, and those of the body. In prayer, therefore, he sub­
tracts from his goods of the soul (not, indeed, essentially, but
insofar as he submits the faculties of his soul to God by using
19 St. Thomas, In Librum IVum Sententiarum, Dist. XV, q. 1, a. 4, sol.
3; Summa Theologica, Supplementum, q. 15, a. 3.

8

Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

them for His honor) ; in almsgiving, from his goods of fortune;
and in fasting, from bodily goods.
2. Satisfaction is intended to cut out the roots of sin. But
man has only three such roots: the pride of life, concupiscence
of the eyes, and concupiscence of the flesh.2'1 Against the first,
prayer is arrayed ; against the second, almsgiving provides a
remedy ; and fasting helps to conquer the concupiscence of the
flesh.
3. Satisfaction must close the door to the suggestions of sin
or temptation. But there are three kinds of sins: those com­
mitted against God, against one’s neighbor, and against oneself.
Prayer opposes sins against God, almsgiving opposes sins against
one’s neighbor, and fasting opposes sins against oneself.
To these three classes must be added the ills and adversities of
the present life, which are inflicted or permitted by Almighty
God. When the one suffering such pains makes them his own,
by patiently and voluntarily accepting them in punishment for
his sins, they obtain satisfactory value.21 In fact it is usually
more difficult for man to make his own a penalty inflicted by
another than to choose a penalty of his own free will. In this
connection it should be noted that even though the trials of the
present life are not brought on by one’s own free will, the ac­
ceptance or non-acceptance of these trials is a free choice for
man. If he accepts them freely he offers satisfaction. The
mere objective undergoing of Jhe trials sent by God would be
only satispassio.22
Practically every satisfactory work is easily related or referred
to one of the three designated classes. For example, whatever
praise or worship is offered to God may be classed as prayer.
In like manner, whatever operates to the utility of one’s neigh­
bor—and is performed for that end—can be considered as
almsgiving. And finally, since every bodily affliction is caused

1 )

r

20 I John 2:16: “. . . because all that is in the world is the lust of the
flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life; which is not from the
Father, but from the world.”
21 Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, cap. 9 and canon 13 (DB 9Ô6, 923).
22 Cf. Prümmer, op. cit., Ill, p. 280, n. 391 ; Galtier, op. cit., p. 358 n
469, 2.

;■

. LIT

The Nature of Satisfaction

9

through the subtraction of some bodily good, whatever contributes
to the affliction of the body is reduced or referred to fasting.
It should not be thought, however, that a penal or satisfactory
work is limited to one class only. Such a work, one in itself,
may in its aspects or effects be referred to more than one group.
In this sense an individual by praying to God for the conver­
sion of sinners would perform a work marked both as prayer
and as almsgiving.
From what has been said, it follows that each class enumerated
above will include many different works. Prayer includes every
work of religion and piety pertaining to the worship of God.
To almsgiving belong all the spiritual and corporal works of
mercy. Finally, under the heading of fasting is included every
act of internal and external mortification,23
Article IV. The Effects of Satisfaction
Extra-sacramental satisfaction effects, ex opere operantis, the
remission of the temporal punishment due to remitted sin. At
the same time it punishes past sin and restores the order of
justice disrupted by sin.
In a secondary degree, as suggested by the Council of Trent,24
satisfaction also has a medicinal and preservative effect. As a
medicine, satisfaction removes the remains of sins and counter­
acts vicious habits by acts of virtue. As a preservative, satisfac­
tion removes penitents from the occasions of sin and makes them
more vigilant against relapse into sin in the future.
23 B. H. Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis (ed. 3a; Paris: Desclée,
1938-1939), III, p. 513, n. 557, 3.
24 Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, cap. 8 (DB 904).

CHAPTER II
THE PRESENT DOCTRINE ON SATISFACTION
Article I. Necessity
The basis for the necessity of satisfaction is the fact that when
the debt of guilt and debt of eternal punishment have been re­
mitted, the entire debt of temporal punishment is not ordinarily
removed. Hence satisfaction is necessary if man wishes to pay,
in the present life, that debt of temporal punishment which
remains.
Protestants generally hold that the debt of guilt is never re­
mitted without the simultaneous remission of the entire debt
of punishment, eternal and temporal. They even see a repug­
nance in the supposition that any debt of punishment should
remain after the guilt is removed. As a consequence they deny
both the necessity and the utility of satisfaction and satisfactory
works.1 In fact, their denials really sweep away the very posv sibility of any human acts which would have formally the value
of satisfaction. The conclusion reached by them is well known:
optima poenitentia, nova vita.
The Catholic doctrine is directly opposed to that of the Protes­
tants. It may be stated thus: the sins of those who have fallen
from grace after Baptism are so forgiven that, when the debt
of guilt and of eternal punishment has been remitted, ordinarily
some temporal punishment remains to be endured either in the
present life or in the life to come.
1 Cf. M. Luther, “ Sermo : De Indulgentiis,” in Opera Latina, ed. Dr.
Henricus Schmidt, Vol. I (Frankofurti ad. M. et Erlangae : C. Heyder et
H. Zimmer, 1865), p. 329; "De Captivitate Babylonica,” op. tit., Vol. V
(1868), p. 85; P. Melancthon, "II Apologia Confessionis Augustanae, art.
vi, De Confessione et Satisfactione,” in Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, eds.
C. G. Bretschneider, H. E. Bindseil, Vol. XXVII (Brunsvigae: C. A.
Schwetschke et Filium [M. Bruhn], 1859), col. 556; J. Calvin, Institutiones,
Lib. Ill, cap. iv, 25, 30.

10

Or·

The Present Doctrine on Satisfaction

11

According to Catholic teaching, with the infusion of sanctify­
ing grace the debt of eternal punishment is always remitted to­
gether with the guilt. Through sanctifying grace man is con­
stituted an heir of heaven ; hence it is impossible that he should
be at the same time deserving of hell.2
In justification through the real reception of Baptism, not only
the guilt and eternal punishment but also the entire debt of
temporal punishment is removed.3 This point of faith, however,
does not flow from the nature of justification but rather from
the free will of God decreeing Baptism to be the sacrament of
regeneration to a new life, effecting the complete obliteration of
all that pertained to the life of sin.45 The remission of sins
through martyrdom likewise brings with it the removal of the
entire debt of temporal punishment. Nor does the Church deny
that in Penance the whole debt of temporal punishment is some­
times removed, e.g., through the greater perfection of contrition.
The general law of post-baptismal justification, however, is that
sin is forgiven (through contrition or the sacrament of Penance)
in such a way that a debt of temporal punishment remains even
after the remission of the guilt and of eternal punishment. Some
temporal punishment is remitted in justification, but the amount
varies, the reason being that the merits of Christ are applied in
the post-baptismal remission of temporal punishment according
to the dispositions of the penitent, and these dispositions vary in
fervor.3
The doctrine that the debt of temporal punishment is not always
remitted with the guilt is a matter of defined faith from the
Council of Trent.6 It is likewise supported “by clear and out2 Cf. De San, op. cit., p. 665, n. 875. De San substantiates the remission
of eternal punishment from Rom. 8:16. Cf. Council of Trent, Sess. VI,
cap. 7, canons 10-11 (DB 799, 820-821).
3 Council of Trent, Sess. V, Decretum super peccato originali, 5 {DB
792) ; Rom. 6:4. Cf. Council of Trent, Sess. VI, cap. 14 (DB 807) ; Sess.
XIV, cap. 8 {DB 904) ; Council of Florence, Decretum pro Armenis, {DB
696).
4 De San, op. cit., toe. cit.
5 De San, op. cit., p. 666, n. 875.
6 Council of Trent, Sess. VI, cap. 14 and canon 30 {DB 807, 840) ; Sess.
XIV, cap. 8, canons 12 and 15 (DB 904, 922, 925).

12 Sacramental Penance in the Tzvelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

standing examples . . . in the sacred writings ” and divine tradi­
tion.
SACRED SCRIPTURE

Scripture testifies that God, after remitting the guilt of their
sin, nevertheless inflicted temporal penalties upon certain sinners.
The*most notable example of this fact is King David.
II Kings XII, 13-14: And David said to Nathan: I
have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said to
David: The Lord also hath taken away thy sin: thou
shalt not die. Nevertheless, because thou hast given
occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for
this thing the child that is born to thee shall surely die.

The prophet Nathan had previously upbraided King David for
his crime in plotting the death of Urias and for his sin of adultery
with Bethsabee, the wife of Urias. Nathan had likewise
threatened, in God’s name, several punishments for those sins.
David, filled with compunction, had then confessed his guilt in
the sight of God. Finally the prophet, though he assured David
that God had already forgiven his sin, foretold that neverthe­
less the child to be born of the illicit union would die in punish­
ment of David’s sin. The debt of guilt had been forgiven, but
the debt of temporal punishment remained and was exacted from
David through the death of the child.
In like manner God forgave Moses and Aaron, and yet they
were excluded from the promised land ; 7 Adam suffered many
punishments even though he was forgiven ; 8 the same principle
is evident in various ills visited upon the Israelites for their sins
even after forgiveness.9
These facts from Scripture prove that it is a general law that
some temporal punishment is decreed by God for all sins, and
that this debt of temporal punishment is not necessarily taken
away together with the guilt and eternal punishment.10
7 Num. 20:6-12, 24-30; cf. Num. 27:12-14; Deut. 34:1-5.
8 Gen. 3:16-21; 4:1-2, 25; 5:1-5; cf. Wisd. 10:1-2.
8 Exod. 32:9-14, 27-28; Num. 14:11-23.
10 Cf. D. Palmieri, Tractatus de Poenitentia (Rome: Polyglott Press

The Present Doctrine on Satisfaction

13

The argument for the existence of such a general law may be
stated briefly: (1) The punishment inflicted upon the abovenamed sinners was inflicted justly and according to the sinners’
debt of expiation for their sins; that is demanded by the justice
of God Who, according to the Inspired Word, renders reward
or punishment to everyone according to his works.” (2) But that
punishment could not be said to have been inflicted justly on the
sinners just mentioned which was not inflicted according to a
general law of punishing even remitted sins ; otherwise the
punishment inflicted upon these sinners would have been in­
flicted solely on account of the sinners themselves and not on
account of their sins. In such an hypothesis God would not
render to the sinner according to his works but rather according
to acceptance of persons. (3) Therefore the punishments in­
flicted upon the sinners named in the Scriptural evidence were
inflicted according to a general law—there is a temporal punish­
ment due to sins, and this punishment is not necessarily remitted
together with the guilt and eternal punishment.
TRADITION

Tradition bears witness that the Church has always held this
doctrine. That the Fathers, while treating of the fall and re­
pentance of known sinners of the Old Testament, explicitly state
that God exacts punishments for sins even after those sins are
forgiven is admitted even by Calvin.11
12
I. Patristic doctrine on this point may be gathered under two
headings.
A. The obligation of punishment is not cancelled automatically
by the remission of the guilt of sin. St. Augustine points out
that the evils of this life await men as punishment for sin.13
Sometimes, as in the case of David, special punishment comes
1879), p. 412; Galtier, op. cit., pp. 410-411; nn. 534-535 ; Hervé, op. cit.,
IV, p. 362, n. 307.
11 Cf. Ps. 61:13: “. . . et tibi Domine, misericordia: quia tu reddes
unicuique juxta opera sua.” Also: Prov. 24:12; Rom. 2:6; Matt. 16:27;
II Cor. 5:10.
12 Institutiones, Lib. Ill, cap. iv, 38.
13 In Joannis Evang. Tract., 124, n. 5 (PL 35, 1972; J 1845).

14 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
in the present life even after sins are forgiven.11 St. Gregory
the Great emphasized the reality of forgiveness even though
punishment follows.14
15*
B. In order that they may offer satisfaction to God for their
post-baptismal sins, sinners must undergo laborious penance
through corporal afflictions, fasting, watching, and almsgiving.
St. Cyprian forcefully reminds the Lapsi of their obligation to
do penance, an obligation arising out of their nudity in the super­
natural order, from the examples in Scripture even of the just,
from the perfidy of their sin. He describes the means to be
taken and the results to be hoped for from God.10
II. That this penance was necessary even after the remission of
the debt of guilt is shown not only by the individual testimony of
the Fathers as listed above, but also and more clearly' from the
penitential discipline of the early Church.17 Without any attempt
to determine the time of sacramental absolution (i. e., before or
after satisfaction had been made), it is certain that in danger
of death absolution was given to sinners before any satisfaction
could be made. Yet such sinners, if they recovered, were bound
to perform or complete the satisfaction due.18 In this practice
appears the mind of the Church concerning satisfaction as the
means to pay the debt of temporal punishment due to sin ; other­
wise no sufficient reason could be assigned for the obligation to
complete satisfaction on recovery.
The doctrine on purgatory and the practice of praying, etc., for
the souls of the faithful departed are based on the same principle.
REASON

Reason cannot prove the necessity of satisfaction as a means of
removing the debt of temporal punishment. ' God certainly could
remit both guilt and the entire debt of punishment at the same
14 Enarratio in Psalmum L, 15 (PL 36, 595).
™ Liber Moralium, IX, cap. 34, n. 54 (PL 75, 889; J 2309).
™ De Lapsis, cap. 35 (CSEL 3, 1, 262, 22) ; cap. 36 (CSEL, 3, 1, 264, 5).
17 Cf. Council of Nicaea (I), De baptismo haereticorum et moribundorum
viatico, canon 13 (DB 57) ; St. Innocent I, De reconciliatione in articulo
mortis (DB 95).
18 Galtier, op. cit., p. 411, n. 536; cf. pp. 190-192, nn. 264-265.,

The Present Doctrine on Satisfaction

15

time. Reason can show how fitting it is that a debt of temporal
punishment should remain. In general, God ought to have pro­
vided a means of forgiveness of sin by which He would act “ not
only as a private friend or merciful Father, but also as a just
judge and public legislator.” As Father, God forgives the guilt
and eternal punishment gratuitously through the merits of Christ ;
as Judge, He safeguards the order of justice by imposing tem­
poral punishment on sin and demanding satisfaction for it.19 The
Council of Trent lists several other special reasons of congruity
for satisfaction.20
OPINIONS OF THEOLOGIANS

Theologians agree unanimously concerning the fact that a debt
of temporal punishment ordinarily persists after the remission of
the guilt and eternal punishment. They do not agree as to the
reason why this fact is possible.
Vasquez makes two statements, neither of which is a real
argument from reason for the point in question. (1) Failing to
understand the a priori reasons given by Vega and St. Thomas,
Vasquez announces that he finds the reason ex natura rei in an
a posteriori deduction from the nature of justification as de­
scribed by the Scriptures and by the Fathers.21 (2) Vasquez also
states that the persistence of a debt of temporal punishment can
be understood from the fact that a justified man can owe a debt
of temporal punishment for venial sins.22
(3) Scotus and others find the reason in the commutation of
the eternal punishment into a temporal punishment by God at the
time when He remits the guilt of the sin.23
(4) St. Thomas teaches what is now regarded as the true and
19 Galtier, op. cit., p. 413, n. 538 ; cf. Palmieri, op. cit., pp. 407-408.
20 Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, cap. 8 (JDB 904).
21 In III Partem Sancti Thomae, t. IV, q. 94, a. 1, dubium 2, nn. 5-6.
22 Ibid., n. 4.
23 In IVum Librum Sent., Dist. XIV, q. 4, n. 10; Dist. XXII, q. unica,
n. 21. Among the theologians who hold the same view, at least in sub­
stance, the following may be noted: Alexander of Hales, Summa Theologiae,
Pars IV, q. 14, m. 2, a. 1, n. 3 (p. 468, 2) ; q. 16, m. 1, a. 2 (p. 505, 1) ;
Durandus, In Lib. IV Sent., Dist. XV, q. 2, n. 9 ; Dominicus Soto, In Lib.
IV Sent. (T. I), Dist. XIX, q. 1, a. 4.

16 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth- Centuries
common opinion. He states that two elements are found in every
mortal sin: (a) aversion from the unchangeable good, Almighty
. God, by reason of which the sinner incurs the divine enmity and
a debt of eternal punishment; (b) an inordinate conversion to
changeable or created good, which of itself brings only a debt of
temporal punishment.
In post-baptismal justification, when sanctifying grace is in­
fused into the soul, the aversion of the soul from God is taken
away and the soul is restored to the friendship of God through
the union of grace. As a consequence, the debt of eternal punish­
ment corresponding to that aversion from God is removed. The
return of divine friendship, however, does not necessarily remove
the deordination which results from the conversion to changeable
good. Therefore neither does the return of divine friendship
necessarily take away the debt of temporal punishment corres­
ponding to that conversion.24

Article Π. Possibility of Satisfactory Works
Man can make condign satisfaction for the debt of temporal
punishment which ordinarily remains after the remission of the
guilt and the eternal punishment. In arriving at this succinct
statement of Catholic doctrine, several principles should be
recalled:
1. Man can satisfy de congruo for his sins in general. This
principle applies both to justified man and to the sinner who
“ under and with the help of grace prepares for himself the way
to justification.” 25 As stated, this principle is theologically certain.
2. Man cannot satisfy de condigno for the offense against God
caused by mortal sin. 'The Council of Trent expressly excludes
the possibility of the sinner offering condign satisfaction for the
guilt of mortal sin:
. . and we are therefore said to be justified
gratuitously, because not one of those things which precede justifi­
cation, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification.” 26
Common opinion of theologians excludes the possibility of a
24 St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, III, q. 86, a. 4.
25 Cf. Galtier, op. cii., pp. 359 ff., nn. 471 ff. ; cf. Council of Trent Sess
VI, cap. 5 and 6 (DB 797-798).
26 Council of Trent, Sess. VI, cap. 8 (DB 801).

The Present Doctrine on Satisfaction

17

justified man offering condign satisfaction even for the previously
forgiven guilt of mortal sin. The intrinsic malice of every mortal
sin exceeds by far any compensation which might be offered by a
mere man: the dignity of God Who is offended is infinite; the
dignity of a justified man remains finite.27 It seems probable,
however, that a justified man could satisfy de condigno for the
guilt of venial sin.
3. The assertion of the possibility of satisfaction for temporal
punishment supposes that the same conditions are required for
condign satisfaction which are demanded for condign merit, plus
the penal aspect of the good work.
4. The temporal punishment for which man can offer satisfac­
tion is especially the punishment of purgatory. It may refer,
however, to any of the punishments of this life which are not
decreed absolutely by God.2829
5. For the present, all that is intended is that man’s satisfaction
for the temporal punishment due to already remitted sin may be
condign ex opere operantis.
Protestants, just as they deny the necessity of satisfaction, deny
also the utility of any human acts toward that end since they strip
them of any satisfactory value.
Catholic doctrine can be summarized in two parts.
I. Man can make satisfaction for the temporal punishment due
to sin. This is a matter of faith from the Council of Trent.39 It
follows logically from the fact that God is willing to accept
man’s works of penance in compensation for the debt of temporal
punishment.
SACRED SCRIPTURE

The Sacred Writings testify that God has promised to remit
punishments and even sins themselves if men offer to Him works
of penance.
27 Galtier, op. cit., p. 362, n. 475; cf. L. Billot, De Verbo Incarnato (ed.
7a; Rome: Gregorian University, 1927), Thesis II, pp. 25 ff.
28 Cf. Galtier, op. cit., p. 363, n. 476; Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol.
Ill, Penance (4th ed. ; St. Louis: Herder, 1924), p. 225.
29 Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, cap. 8-9 {DB 904—906) ; canon 13 {DB
923).

18 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

II Paralipomenon VII, 13-14: If I shut up heaven, and
there fall no rain, or if I give orders, and command the
locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among
my people: and my people upon whom my name is called,
being converted, shall make supplication to me, and seek
out my face, and do penance for their most wicked ways :
then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sins
and will heal their land.
The occasion of these inspired words followed the celebration of
the completion of the temple and the solemnity. Previous to the
feast Solomon had prayed to the Lord for continued forgiveness
of his people’s sins upon repentance (cf. VI, 36-39). Here the
Lord appears to Solomon by night and promises to forgive the
sins of the people and to withdraw the punishments visited upon
their land, provided that they are converted and prove their con­
version in supplication and penance.
The same doctrine appears in other passages. Daniel shows
Nabuchodonosor the humiliations promised in the king’s dream,
and urges him to works of penance in recompense for his sins
of pride and as a means of avoiding divine punishment.30 Tobias
urges his son to be good to the poor and to give alms, “ for alms
deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul
to go into darkness.” 31 St. John the Baptist orders the people to
bring forth fruits which demonstrate their repentance as the only
way in which they can flee “ from the wrath to come.” 32
TRADITION

1. The Fathers teach that works of penance placate the wrath
of God, obtain mercy and the condonation of punishment. The
punishment involved in this kind of work is the reason why God
will remit further punishments.33
so Dan 4:16-24.
31 Tob. 4:7 and 11.
‘
32 Luke 3:7-8. Cf. I Cor. 11:32.
33 Cf. F. Pignataro, De Disciplina Poenitentiali Priorum Ecclesiae Saecu­
lorum Commentarius (Rome: Ex Typographia luvenum Opificium a S.
losepho, 1904), cap. 3, esp. pp. 57-58: “Satisfactio Deo per opera poenitentialia exhibenda maximi momenti censebatur a Patribus, ita ut omnes ex­
hortationes ad poenitentiam fere unice versentur circa eiusmodi opera satisfactoria, quibus peccator curaret vulnera, quae peccatum in eo reliquerat.’’

The Present Doctrine on Satisfaction

19

For example, Tertullian points to the fulfillment of penance as
the price of pardon and the compensation by which remission of
punishment is attained.34 A Christian should be ashamed to
fall into sin after Baptism but not ashamed to repent anew ; for
thus he can be reconciled to God Who is willing to accept his
satisfaction.35 Exomologesis (confession) not only produces in­
terior penance by which God is appeased, but also satisfies for
divine punishments by temporal affliction according to this rule:
"In quantum non peperceris tibi, in tantum tibi Deus, crede,
parcet.” 36
St. Cyprian announces the same truth in an exhortation to the
Lapsi to do works of penance according to the prescriptions which
God has given to men. It is of great importance to act now
“ while satisfaction and remission (accomplished) through the
priests is pleasing to the Lord.” 37 St. Augustine urges Christians
who fall into sin to punish themselves and thus avoid punishment
by God.38 The Church removes sinners from the “ society of the
altar ” in order that they may placate God by repentance and
punishment of themselves ; to the sinner who does not spare
himself God grants pardon.39 A last bit of evidence is offered
by St. Gregory the Great. The sinner, guilty of illicit acts, must
“ strive to abstain also from certain licit acts, since through this
[abstinence] he may make satisfaction to his Maker.” 40 More­
over, the mere cessation from evil does not constitute satisfaction.
Satisfaction is made by punishing the past evils with suitable
lamentations.41
2. The practice of the Church likewise supposes that God is
willing to accept the works of penance in compensation for the
temporal punishment due to sins. The Church has always urged
34 De Poenitentia, cap. 6, n. 4 (Preuschen, op. cit., p. 9, 7).
35 Ibid., cap. 7, nn. 13-14 (Preuschen, op. cit., p. 13, 1).
36 Ibid., cap. 9, nn. 1-6 (Preuschen, op. cit., pp. 14—15) ; cf. Pignataro,
op. cit., cap. 1, p. 7.
De Lapsis, cap. 29 (CSEL 3, 1, 258-259; K 263) ; cf. ibid., cap. 32-36
(CSEL 3, 1, 260-264).
33 Sermo 20, 2 (PL 38, 139 ; J 1494).
39 Epist. 153, 3, 6 (CSEL 44, 401, 5; J 1434).
40/« Evang. Hom. XXXIV, 16 (PL 76, 1256).
^Regula Pastoralis III, 30 (PL 77, 111),

20 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

all the faithful to daily penance and has made certain that sinners
performed penance due to their sins. The Liturgy is replete with
prayers begging remission of punishment for departed souls. With
true wisdom the Church sets aside seasons of penance during the
year.
II. Map can offer condign satisfaction for the temporal punish­
ment due to remitted sins. That the penal works of a man in the
state of grace can constitute a condign recompense for the debt of
temporal punishment is theologically certain. The conclusion is
drawn from the condemnation of two propositions of Michael
Baius (du Bay) in the Bull of St. Pius V, Ex omnibus afflictioni­
bus, of October 1, 1567.42
Three considerations will help to confirm the Catholic position.
1. The good works of one in the state of grace can merit de
condigno an increase of grace, eternal life, and an increase of
glory in that life.43 This fact supposes a value in those works
which is truly proportioned to the goods merited by them. Hence
those good works as penal would have much greater value toward
the attaining of the much less precious objective of the remission
of temporal punishment.44
2. The moral value of the penal works of the just is equal to
the moral value of the temporal punishment due. For the moral
value of the debt of temporal punishment arises from its purpose
or its suitability in attaining its purpose. Now God inflicts tem­
poral punishment for two reasons: (a) to restore the order of
justice disrupted by sin; (b) to maintain that order by discourag­
ing the violation of the law by others. The penal works of the
just man, under the necessary conditions, are apt to fulfill that
42 Errores Michaelis du Bay (Baii), n. 59: “Quando per eleemosynas
aliaque poenitentiae opera Deo satisfacimus pro poenis temporalibus, non
dignum pretium Deo pro peccatis nostris offerimus, sicut quidam errantes
autumant (nam alioqui essemus, saltem aliqua ex parte, redemptores) ; sed
aliquid facimus, cuius intuitu Christi satisfactio nobis applicatur et com­
municatur” (DB 1059); n. 77: “Satisfactiones laboriosae justificatorum
non valent expiare de condigno poenam temporalem restantem post culpam
condonatam” (DB 1077).
43 Council of Trent, Sess. VI, canon 32 (DB 842) ; cf. ibid., cap. 10 and
canon 24 (DB 803, 834) ; cap. 16 and canon 26 (DB 809, 836).
44 Cf. Palmieri, op. cit., p. 423.

The Present Doctrine on Satisfaction

i

;
)
(

21

twofold purpose: (a) by them the sinner recognizes his violation,
his debt, and strives to do what he can to restore the order he has
violated; (b) the fact that a debt of punishment remains even for
the justified sinner is a deterrent to others. Hence, it is correct to
say that satisfactory works procure the remission of temporal
punishment de condigno.45
3, The inequality between the penal works voluntarily under­
taken and the temporal punishment due is no obstacle to condign
satisfaction. The inequality is a material difference between one
penalty and another ; it would be an obstacle were this a question
of the mere objective sustaining of punishment {satispassio rather
than satisfactio). Satisfaction, however, is in the moral order.
The moral worthiness of the one making satisfaction—a worth
flowing from his intention and especially from the presence of
sanctifying grace in his soul—is so great that the disparity be­
tween the penal works he offers and the punishment actually due
is adequately neutralized. The presence of that good intention
and sanctifying grace in the just man gives God reason to remit
de. condigno some of the debt of temporal punishment without
detracting from His love of justice.46
It should be noted here that the ability to offer condign satis­
faction for the temporal punishment does not, as Baius contended,
make man in some way his own redeemer. Man satisfies de
condigno not for the guilt or eternal punishment, but only for the
temporal punishment. Moreover, he can only make satisfaction
for the temporal punishment by reason of the merits of Jesus
Christ from which he receives justification and the power to act
supernaturally. The satisfaction of man, while belonging truly
and properly to him, also belongs to Christ “ in so far as it has
dignity and value only from the previous satisfaction of Christ.” 4T
This is what the Council of Trent intended in the statements “in
Christo . . . in quo satisfacimus,” and “. . . satisfactiones quibus
poenitenies per Christum Jesum peccata redimunt.” 48
HI. The common teaching of theologians also states that man
45 Cf. Galtier, op. cit., p. 367, n. 482 B.
46 Ibid., n. 482 C.
47 Ibid., p. 368, n. 483.
48 Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, cap. 8 and canon 14 {DB 904, 924).

22 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
in the state of grace can offer condign satisfaction for his own
venial sin. Man can make this satisfaction not only for the
debt of temporal punishment but also for the guilt or offense of
venial sin.49 Two considerations may be offered in proof of this
teaching:
1. The doctrine of St. Thomas concerning the difference be­
tween mortal sin and venial sin.30 Mortal sin is so great a deordi­
nation that it constitutes an aversion from God and blasts from
the soul the intrinsic vital principle of grace. Therefore mortal
sin is irreparable ab intrinseco. Venial sin is a deordination, but
not great enough to involve aversion from God (citra aversionem).
It does not remove the intrinsic vital principle of supernatural life
from the soul and hence remains reparable ab intrinseco. To be
able to repair the moral deordination of venial sin is certainly to
be able to offer condign satisfaction for it.
2. The doctrine of St. Thomas concerning the nature of a venial
offense against God.51 Venial sin is a conversion to some created
good by which supernatural charity, though not excluded or di­
minished in itself, is impeded or retarded in its act—man does not
direct himself to God with as much fervor and promptness as he
should. That is why venial sin is said not to cause a blemish on
the soul but only to dull the lustre which would result from a
fervent act of charity.
This defect of fervor and promptitude can be supplied or
compensated by the fervor and promptitude of an act by which
man is impelled toward God in such a way as to withdraw himself
from some licit created good to which he might otherwise cling.
To demonstrate completely how God wills to accept such com­
pensation as pleasing to Him and to explain fully the remission
of venial sins is beyond the scope of the present study.52 For our
purpose- it is sufficient to recall the explicit promise of Sacred
49 Cf. F. Suarez, Opera Omnia (Paris: Vives, 1856-1878), T. XVII,
disp. IV, sect, xi, nn. 1-7; Salmanticenses; Cursus Theologicus (ParisV. Palmé, 1870-1883), T. XIII, tract. XXI, disp. I, dub. 5, q. 1; GaltieV
op. cit., p. 368, n. 484.
50 St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, I-11, q. 72, a. 5; q. 88, a. 1.
51 Ibid., q. 88, a, 1 ; q. 89, a. 1 ; III, q. 87, a. 2 et ad 3utn.
52 Gf. Galtier, op. cit., pp. 418-421, nn. 546-552, for treatment of the
remission of venial sins.

The Present Doctrine on Satisfaction

23

Scripture: “ If we acknowledge our sins, He is faithful and just
to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity.” 53 If
that promise has any force, “ at least and especially concerning
venial sins ” should it be understood.54

Article III. The Conditions of Satisfaction
Satisfaction has been shown to be necessary for the remission
of the temporal punishment due to sin. It has been shown to be
possible to man as a means of securing that remission of temporal
punishment. Satisfaction, however, is only possible under certain
conditions.55
When the possibility of satisfaction was discussed earlier, it was
said that not every man could perform condign satisfaction, but
only that man who is capable of condign merit. In other words,
the conditions of condign merit are also the conditions of condign
satisfaction.
1. On the part of God there must be acceptance. Actually man
cannot offer anything to God to which remission of punishment
would be due in strict justice, since all man’s works must be made
with goods or gifts which already belong to God and have been
bestowed by God upon man. Even those v'orks that are propor­
tioned to their supernatural goal through grace cannot constitute
a claim to remission of temporal punishment, unless God agrees
to accept those works toward that end.
This quality or condition has already been shown to be present
in God’s willingness to remit temporal punishment in return for
the recompense offered by man through penal works.
2. On the part of man making satisfaction, two conditions must
be fulfilled:
(a) actual present life: the time of merit and of satisfaction
ends with the-close of man’s period of probation.
« I John 1:9.
54 Gather, op. cit., p. 370, n. 486.
ssCf. Gather, op. cit., p. 362, n. 476; Noldin-Schmitt, op. cit., 1, pp.
104-113; nn. 96-104; Merkelbach, op. cit., HI, pp. 494-495, n. 543; Hugon,
op. cit., Vol. II (ed. 8a), “De Gratia,” q. 7, a. 1, pp. 255-260; A. Tanqnerey
Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae (ed. 24a; Paris: Desclée, 1933-1938),
III, pp. 187-194, nn. 256-265.

24 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
(b) the state of grace : as already7 mentioned, the satisfactory
value of all man’s works depends in the last instance upon God’s
acceptance of what man can offer. Yet God accepts no work
unless the worker be pleasing to Him, and only a worker who
enjoys the stgite of grace and its consequences in the supernatural
order, such as adopted sonship, friendship with God, and divine
inheritance, can be pleasing to God.
The Council of Trent has assured uniformity among theologians
in positing this condition for satisfaction. In explaining just how
man can make satisfaction the Council states:

Neither is this satisfaction which we discharge for our
sins so our own as not to be through Christ Jesus; for
we who can do nothing of ourselves as of ourselves, can
do all things with the cooperation of Him who strength­
ens us. Thus man has not wherein to glory, but all our
glorying is in Christ, in Whom we live, in whom we
merit, in whom we make satisfaction, bringing forth
fruits worthy of penance, which have their efficacy from
Him, by Him are offered to the Father, and through
Him are accepted by the Father.se
The Council definitely states that man can offer satisfaction
precisely because he lives in Christ. Galtier explains this state­
ment as follows: “And indeed, even our penal actions do not
have of themselves a material proportion of equality by which
they can compensate for greater punishments, e. g., purgatory, due
to sin; therefore that proportion must accrue to them from their
moral value. Now such a value cannot accrue to them except
from the dignity of the person, that is from sanctifying grace,
from divine sonship, from union with Christ.” 57
3. On the part of the work offered as satisfaction there are
four* conditions:
(a) It must be free: that is, it must flow from the choice of
the will without any internal or external necessity ; otherwise it
cannot be a human act. As noted in the first general section,
voluntariety is of the very essence of all atisfaction. Without
it, there would be no distinctive element by which satisfaction
30 Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, cap. 8 (DB 904).
37 Galtier, op. cit., p. 362, n. 476, and footnote no. 2.

The Present Doctrine on Satisfaction

25

would differ from forced punishment. Palmieri adds two further
reasons: “ Indeed satisfaction is a kind of moral effect . . . and
is founded in the moral value of the work, just as merit is;
but without liberty there is no moral being in acts. Besides,
satisfaction is an act of the virtue of penance, to the essence
of which virtue pertains the voluntary detestation and punish­
ment of sins.” 58
(b) It must be a good act: which is evident since the opposite
would be absurd, namely, that satisfaction might be made to
God through an act which is evil and thus offends Him.
(c) It must be supernatural both by reason of its principle
and by reason of its motive: that is, it must proceed with the
help of actual grace and be directed by a motive made known
by faith. By satisfaction man seeks to progress toward his
eternal supernatural goal by removing an obstacle to its earlier
possession ; only grace can give those satisfactory acts a pro­
portion to that supernatural goal. The common opinion is that
actual grace is required for each satisfactory act, since even a jus­
tified man can perform no action in the supernatural sphere
without actual graced The reason for that opinion is that habitual
or sanctifying grace and the infused virtues do not directly move
to action; hence actual grace is necessary for that motion to a
supernatural act.
The motive must be one made known by faith in order that
the work may be truly directed toward man’s supernatural goal,
that is, directed toward God and eternal life. It would not seem
necessary that the motive be charity as merit demands, if for
no other reason than this—-if charity were demanded, then the
specific act of the virtue of penance could never of itself achieve
its own end.
(d) It must be penal : (1) because in sin a person over-indulges
his will, he cannot offer recompense for sin “ through return to
the equality of justice, except in so far as the operations which
58 Palmieri, op. cit., p. 427 : “ Sane satisfactio est moralis quidam effectus,
ut ait Suarez D. XXXVII, Sect. 3, et in morali valore operis fundatur, sicut:
meritum ; sine libertate vero nullum est esse morale in actibus. Praeterea,
satisfactio est actus virtutis poenitentiae, de ratione autem virtutis est ut sit
voluntaria detestatio et vindicta peccatorum.”

26 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

one exhibits in compensation are performed to a certain degree
against the natural inclination of the will, and in that degree
penal and laborious;” (2) since one who injures the right of
another is held to restore the equality of justice by adding to the
goods of the injured party and subtracting from his own; man
subtracts from his own goods “ in so far as he imposes upon
himself penal and laborious works.” 50
To state the case in a slightly different way, it may be said
that a work to be truly satisfactory must both repair the injus­
tice and preserve from future sin. Penal works alone can ordi­
narily achieve that twofold result.
A penal work makes compensation for the injustice committed
against God. Although God in Himself cannot have any good
subtracted from Him, nevertheless the sinner, so far as he is
concerned, does take away some of the honor due to God by
giving himself more than justice allows; he over-indulges his
own will and finds more delight than he should in created goods.
For that reason, the sinner can effect compensation only when
he takes something away from himself in honor of God. Now
any good work gives honor to God, but only a penal work actually
takes something away from the sinner. A good work, as such,
would not accomplish that subtraction, because it would really
perfect the sinner through an increase of grace and merit. Hence
the deprivation can only be achieved through the good work in
so far as it is penal, that is, in so far as something is taken away
from the sinner. This is accomplished both by his accepting tribu­
lations patiently or by performing something against the natural
inclination of his will, and also by his depriving himself of some
created good in which he ordinarily might find utility or pleasure.
From all this it follows that if it were possible for a work to
be good and not penal, it would be only meritorious and not satis­
factory. As a matter of fact, every good work is penal for man
in his fallen state, that is, is penal to fallen human nature. As
a result of original sin, man tends to creatures, to sensible and
earthly goods. When he acts supernaturally for the honor of
God, he performs a work which is in some degree arduous and

The Present Doctrine on Satisfaction

27

j
;

laborious and therefore penal. This would be even more ap­
parent in a case of assignment of that work as a penance.
Penal works also prevent future sin. Like all supernatural acts,
they merit (at least de congruo) actual grace which is the great
medicine of the spirit. Besides, man does not return quite so
readily to acts which deserve and bring punishment.
Two observations should be made here. The merely objective
penal character of a work does not make it satisfactory. The
penalty is only the material element in satisfaction; to be satis­
factory, the formal element of voluntariety must be joined to the
penalty. The penal work must always be in conjunction with
the will of the penitent, so that he voluntarily assumes the penalty
with the intention of making satisfaction. It would seem that
the implicit intention of directing penal works to the perform­
ance of satisfaction would suffice. It is presumed that everyone,
endowed with the other required conditions, desires by a general
intention to derive all the benefits possible from his spiritual
works.
On the other hand, the satisfactory value of such penal works
is not at all diminished where, by reason of constancy in virtue,
they become easier for the individual. Such diminution of
difficulty does not derive from the work itself, which remains
equally penal and laborious objectively, but rather flows from
the promptness of the individual will through the action of
supernatural charity. In fact, such a diminution of the sub­
jective penal character of the works rather increases their
efficacy as satisfaction, because it makes those works more pleas­
ing to God. In this sense the penitential practices of the Saints,
remaining equally penal objectively, were performed with a grow­
ing facility. The works were actually no less difficult or penal,
but the increase of charity in the Saints made such works easier
for them.

I

Article IV. Vicarious Human Satisfaction
As long as the conditions of satisfaction are fulfilled, one per­
son may satisfy for another by reason of the Communion of
Saints, the great supernatural organization, the members of which

28 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
are commanded to bear one another’s burdens.60 The field in
which that possibility exists is, however, limited:
a) One person may make satisfaction for another in so far
as satisfaction is directed to the remission of the debt of temporal
punishment due to remitted sins.
b) Satisfaction as a preservative medicine against future
sins is per se availing only to the one who performs it. The
medicine taken by one patient does not cure the illness of another
patient.
c) Sacramental satisfaction enjoined upon one penitent can­
not be performed, in so far as it is strictly sacramental, by an­
other person. It must be performed by the penitent who receives
the sacrament of Penance, and who is alone responsible for the
performance of an integral part of that sacrament.61
60 Cf. Hugon, o/>. cit., III, “De Poenitentia,” q. 4, a. 3, pp. 609-610; Merkelbach, op. cit., Ill, pp. 497-498, nn, 546-547. The latter notes that the
principles listed here apply also to satisfaction for souls in purgatory.
61 Cf. IV Lateran Council, cap. 21 (DB 437) ; Council of Trent, Sess.
VI, cap. 14 (DB 807) ; Sess. XIV, cap. 8 (DB 904-905) ; Codex I, C„
canon 887.

CHAPTER III
SACRAMENTAL SATISFACTION
Article I. Notion
To the notion of satisfaction in general or extra-sacramental
satisfaction, sacramental satisfaction adds the notion of an ele­
ment of the sacrament of Penance, enjoined by the confessor.
It may be defined as the penance (opus bonum et poenale) im­
posed by the confessor in the sacrament of Penance, to com­
pensate for the injustice inflicted upon God through sin and to
secure the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin?
The word penance (opus bonum et poenale) is included in the
definition because it is only by performing some good work,
which is pleasing to God and burdensome and painful to himself,
that man can compensate for and punish the offense and injus­
tice inflicted on God through sin, “ for sacramental satisfaction
of its very nature is a chastisement.” 12
Imposition by the confessor as an element of the sacrament of
Penance is the link by means of which satisfaction is made
sacramental. Other works of penance, assumed by one’s own
will or freely accepted from God, possess satisfactory value.
They are not, however, sacramental satisfactions and hence do
not attain the proper effect of sacramental satisfaction.
Sacramental satisfaction can be considered as existing either
in intention (in voto) or in execution (in re).
Satisfaction in voto is the will to accept and fulfill the penance
imposed by the confessor. The intention of performing the satis­
faction (supposing that it binds sub gravi) is essential to the re­
ception of the sacrament ; otherwise the penitent will be lacking the
necessary purpose of amendment in that he lacks the resolution
1 Cf. NoIdin-Schmitt, op. cit., Ill, p. 304, n. 299 ; Merkelbach, op. cit.,
Ill, p. 487, n. 534; Prümmer, op. cit., Ill, p. 280, n. 391; Cappello, op. cit.,
II, p. 240, n. 298; H. Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, ΙΠ (3rd ed. ;
London: Sheed and Ward, 1941), p. 261.
2 Noldin-Schmitt, op. cit., Ill, p. 304, n. 299.

29

30 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

to fulfill a grave obligation. Hence such an intention must pre­
cede absolution and its absence would invalidate the sacrament?
Satisfaction in re is the actual fulfillment of the penance
assigned. It is an integral (as distinguished from essential) part
of the sacrament,3
4 generally follows the absolution of the priest,
and, if omitted, does not render the sacrament invalid, but only
imperfect and incomplete. This is not to say that the omission
of actual satisfaction is not sinful. For in a case where a grave
penance is imposed by the confessor sub gravi (which intention
of the confessor is to be presumed in grave matter), the penitent
who wilfully omits all or a large part of the penance assigned
is guilty of mortal sin. Even where one of those two conditions
is lacking, such a penitent would be guilty of a venial sin.5
Sacramental satisfaction is both vindictive and medicinal. In
its vindictive aspect, satisfaction aims to punish sin. Medicinal
satisfaction intends to prevent relapses into sin. In sacramental
satisfaction, both ends are always intended: to punish sins and
to heal or cure the spiritual weakness caused by them. The proper
and primary objective, however, is expiation for the punishment
due to sins.
Sacramental satisfaction according to the more probable and
more common theological view is an integral element of the
proximate matter of Penance, and hence partakes of the efficacy
of the sacrament instituted by Christ. Thus, it produces the
3 Cf. A. Vermeersch, Theologiae Moralis Principia, Responsa, Consilia,
III (ed. 3a; Rome: Gregorian University, 1935), p. 498, η. 554: “Accedens
ad confitendam culpam mortalem, sub mortali debet animo paratus esse
acceptare et exsequi paenitentiam quae ei rationabiliter imponetur, ut aliqualis
expiatio peccati et poenae temporalis Dei debitae post remissam culpam.”
The reason for changing the statement from a case of mortal sin to one
in which the satisfaction will bind sub gravi is to make the doctrine more
clear. The confessor can assign a grave penance merely sub levi. Cf.
Vermeersch, op. cit., Ill, p. 448, n. 500, 4; Merkelbach, op. cit., Ill, p.
515, n. 559 ; Davis, op. cit., Ill, p. 263 ; Noldin-Schmitt, op. cit., Ill, p. 306,
n. 302; p. 311, n. 308, 2.
4 Cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, cap. 3 and canon 4 (DB 896, 914) ;
Council of Florence, Decretum pro Armenis (DB 699) ; Errores Martini
Luther, n. 5 (DB 745).
5 For example, cf. Prümmer, op. cit., Ill, pp. 285-286, n. 400 ; Vermeersch
op. cit., Ill, p. 499, n. 554.

Sacramental Satisfaction

31

remission of the temporal punishment due to already remitted
sins ex opere operato. Our Lord instituted the sacrament of
Penance, of which satisfaction is an integral part, for the com­
plete and total remission of sin, the remission of the guilt and
of all punishment due to the repentant sinner.
Consequently, it becomes evident that works of sacramental
satisfaction have a twofold satisfactory effect: one ex opere
operato, which accrues to them because they are an element of
a sacrament, the other ex opere operantis, which they produce in
common with all other good works of a man in the state of grace.
Article II. Obligation of the Confessor
There is no question here of the will to make satisfaction on
the part of the penitent. It is necessarily supposed before any
actual satisfaction may be availing toward the intended end.
We are concerned with satisfaction in re, the integral part of the
sacrament of Penance.
The obligation of the priest to impose a sacramental penance
is prescribed by the Council of Trent:

The priests of the Lord must therefore, so far as reason
and prudence suggest, impose salutary and suitable satis­
factions, in keeping with the nature of the crimes and
the ability of the penitents; otherwise, if they should
connive at sins and deal too leniently with penitents, im­
posing certain very light works for very grave offenses,
they might become partakers in the sins of others.
The Council likewise condemns all those who deny that this
power was included in the transmission to the Church of the
powers of binding and loosing.®
1. The priest has the power to enjoin satisfaction. That is
clear from the words in which Our Lord granted to the Apostolic
College the general power of binding and loosing and the express
power to remit and retain sins.T In neither case does Christ place
any limit upon the power granted to the Apostles and their suc­
cessors.
f

e Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, cap. 8, canon 15 (DB 905, 925) ; Codex
I. C., canon 887.
r Matt. 18:18 ; John 20:23.

32 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
The power of binding and loosing is limited only by the pur­
pose of the Church to which the power was entrusted·—the salva­
tion of souls. The salutary purgation of sins and of the punish­
ment due to them through the assignment of satisfaction certainly
contributes to the attainment of that purpose.
Neither did Christ place any limit to the object of the power
to forgive or retain sins. Hence that power extends to the full
and perfect remission of sins. It would not be totally efficacious
in remitting the temporal punishment due to sins, hoAvever, unless
one of its acts was the imposition of sacramental satisfaction, the
means normally required for the remission of that punishment.
The Council of Trent teaches that this has been the traditional
understanding of the power of the keys. The Fathers both
believe and tea'ch that the “ keys of the priests were granted not
only to loose, but also to bind.” 8
2. The priest is obliged to use the pozver to enjoin satisfaction.
Such is the express teaching of the Council of Trent and the
Code of Canon Law cited above. The obligation of the con­
fessor to enjoin penance is likewise clear from :
a) The very nature of the sacrament of Penance:
(1) Christ so instituted the sacrament that the remission of
sins should be achieved in a judicial manner and according to
that certain process by which remission is given by God. Hence
when the confessor as judge remits the guilt and eternal punish­
ment of sin, he must judicially announce to the sinner that there
remains a penalty to be paid. This is precisely to impose satis­
faction.9
(2)Christ instituted the sacrament to remove completely
post-baptismal sin. The sacrament does not signify and hence
does not effect the remission of temporal punishment except
where penance is assigned toward that remission. The Council
of Trent clearly indicates this truth in anathematizing all those
who presume to deny that “ for the full and perfect remission
of sins the three acts of the penitent, the quasi matter of the
sacrament of Penance, are required, that is contrition, confession
and satisfaction.” 10
8 Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, cap. 8 (DB 905); canon 15 (DB 925).
9 Galtier, op. cit., p. 371, n. 488, 2.
10 Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, canon 4 (DB 914) ; cf. cap. 3 (£>£ 896).

i ht

~

-,

■
*■ -G1/jF.#· /V·*/Xΐ/ Ο

as*·®
‘ i < ·.*'£

i

SI®;®

Sacramental Satisfaction

33

(3) In the confessional, the priest is both judge and doctor.
Hence he must both punish and cure sins. Satisfaction, which
provides both punishment and medicine, is the means by which
the confessor fulfills his twofold duty. Hence he must assign it.
b) The reasons of congruity suggested by the Council of
Trent. Satisfaction should be assigned because post-baptismal
justification should be more arduous than that of Baptism ;
because through the imposition of satisfaction divine mercy more
efficaciously recalls man from sin, either by showing the gravity
of sin or by repairing the remains of sin and inculcating good
habits; because by satisfaction the sinner is conformed to Christ.11
3. The penitent is subject to that power of the priest. He
deserves punishment because of the general rule concerning the
ordinary persistence of a debt of temporal punishment even after
the remission of the guilt and eternal punishment. He is subject
to the priest precisely as the priest has the power of imposing
penance. The power of the priest is the power of a judge. A
penitent seeking pardon through the tribunal of penance is sub­
ject to the priest in so far as he is a judge. Moreover, the power
of binding and loosing, which also includes the power of enjoin­
ing penance in the internal forum, cannot be exercised in Penance
except on the penitent.12
4.The constant and universal practice of the Church confirms
these principles.13 The Church has ever signified the mode of
r satisfaction to be imposed upon penitents by confessors, both in
public and in private penance. Extensive evidence for such direc­
tion may be found in all the sources of the history of penance.
The Fathers indicate that the laborious remission of post-baptismal
sins is accomplished through the priests. The Patristic doctrine
is aptly summarized by St. Leo the Great:

For the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus gave this power to the leaders of the Church in
order that they should both give to those making con­
fession the action of penance, and also admit those
same ones, cleansed by suitable satisfaction, to the com11 Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, cap. 8 (DB 904).
12 Palmieri, op. cit., p. 436.
13 Codex I. C., canon 887. .

34 Sacramental Penance in the Tzvelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
munion of the sacraments through the door of recon­
ciliation.1415

To the witness of the Fathers may be added the directions of
penitential canons and the decrees of councils, and especially of
the Libri Poenitentiales.13
5. The obligation to impose satisfaction is per se grave. Hence
the confessor is bound sub gravi to impose penance for necessary
matter. One school holds that he is also bound sub gravi to
impose penance for free matter because of the irreverence toward
the sacrament which would be involved in omitting the injunc­
tion.16 Others hold that the confessor is only bound sub levi
to impose penance for venial sins and mortal sins directly for­
given previously.17 Per accidens the confessor is not bound to
enjoin satisfaction where (a) the penitent is not physically or
morally capable of performance; (b) the confessor might know
from divine revelation that the penitent had made full satisfac­
tion; (c) the penitent confesses a sin after absolution which
does not substantially change the state of the penitent.18
6. The confessor must assign “ salutary and suitable satisfac14 Epistola 108, cap. 2: "Mediator enim Dei et hominum, homo Christus
Jesus hanc praepositis Ecclesiae tradidit potestatem, ut et confitentibus
actionem poenitentiae darent, et eosdem salubri satisfactione purgatos, ad
communionem sacramentorum per januam reconciliationis admitterent ”
(PL 54, 1011). Cf. St Cyprian, De Lapsis, cap. 29 (CSEL 3, 1, 258-259;
K 263) ; St. Augustine, Sermo 351, 4, 9 (PL 39, 1545).
15 Cf. St. Columbanus, De Poenitentiarum Mensura Taxanda Liber (PL
80, 223-230) ; De Remediis Peccatorum, Poenitentiale Animarum (PL 94,
567-576) ; Liber Poenitentialis, Poenitentiale Romanum (PL 105, 693-710).
16 Thus Merkelbach, op. cit., III, p. 493, η. 54Γ; Priimmer, op. cit., III,
p. 282, n. 395. Priimmer notes that this controversy is of little practical
utility, since all authors hold that satisfaction is always to be imposed upon
every penitent capable of performing it.
17 Thus J. De Lugo, Disputationes Scholasticae et Morales, ed. J. B.
Fournials, T. V. (Paris: Vives, 1868), disp. XXV, sect. 4, nn. 49-52;
Noldin-Schmitt, op. cit., Ill, p. 306, n. 302; Sabetti-Barrett, Compendium
Theologiae Moralis (ed. 27a; New York: Pustet, 1919), p. 723, n. 763;
Cappello, op. cit., II, p. 244, n. 304. Cappello notes this as the more
probable opinion.
18 Merkelbach, op. cit., HI, P- 493, n. 540. Merkelbach adds that in prac­
tice it is better to impose some slight additional penance in this last case.

Sacramental Satisfaction

tions, in keeping with the nature of the crimes and the ability
of the penitents.” 19 Thus in assigning penance the confessor
must consider the quantity and quality of the sins confessed, and
the state and disposition of the penitent?0 This obligation to
enjoin a proportioned penance is also per se grave. Therefore,
in general, the confessor is bound to impose#>grave penance for
‘necessary matter, light penance for free matter.
7. Proportioned penance demands grave penance for mortal
sins. It also demands that as the sins are multiplied or become
more grave, the penance must also be morally heavier. Penance
proportioned to the quality or kind of sin will be that which is
contrary to the sin. Thus almsgiving would be the proper penance
for the sin of greed.21 The confessor must consider the individual penitent in order that his injunction may not exceed the
capacity of the penitent and thus act against the primary end
of the sacrament. As the Ritual warns, he should be guided
by the state, condition, sex, age, and disposition of the penitent.22
8. This principle of proportioned satisfaction is supported by
the tradition of the Church. The Fathers explicitly state that not
only the gravity of the crimes, but also the contrition, the state
of mind, and the circumstances of the penitent should be weighed
by the priest in determining the assignment of penance.23 The
. Penitential Books offer the same lesson in various penances for
various classes of penitents and even explicitly state this prin­
ciple.24 Implicitly or explicitly the principle was based upon the
word and example of St. Paul in commending the offender at
'

i(

,
I

J
)
\

i
. .
i .
I
J
j
Ç

1

di
\

35

,

12 Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, cap. 8 (DB 905).
20 Codex I. C., canon 887.
21 Rituale Romanum, Titulus ΙΠ, cap. I, η. 20.
22 Ibid., η. 19.
23 Cf. St. Augustine, Enchiridion, cap. 65 (PL 40, 262-263) ; De Diversis
Quaestionibus L.XXXI il, 26 (PL 40, 17-18); De Correptione et Gratia,
cap. 15, 46 (PL 44, 944); Epistularum XCV, 3 (CSEL 34, 2, 508-509) ;
De Fide et Operibus, cap. 3, 4 (CSEL 41, 39-40) ; St. Leo the Great,
Epistola 159, cap. 6 (PL 54, 1138) ; St. John Chrysostom, De Sacerdotio,
IT, 4 (PG 48, 635).
24 Cf. St. Columbanus, op. cit., n. xii (PL 80, 225 D-226 A) ; Poeniten­
dale Animarum (PL 94, 567 D-569 D) ; Poenitentiale Romanum (PL 105,
695 D-696 C; 705 D-706 A; 707 B).

36 Sacramental Penance in the Tzvelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

Corinth and ordering his forgiveness: “ On the contrary, then,
you should rather forgive and comfort him, lest perchance he
be overwhelmed by too much sorrow.” 25
9. The priest should impose penance ordinarily before giving
absolution. He may assign penance after absolution and indeed
must do so if he has previously omitted to assign it.

Article III. Obligation of Penitents
1. The penitent is obliged to accept and fulfill the proportioned
sacramental penance assigned by the confessor.20 The fact that
the confessor is held to assign a sacramental penance proportioned
to the sins of the penitent, necessarily supposes in the penitent
the obligation to accept and fulfill that penance. “ Rights and
duties are correlative.” 27 The obligation of the penitent to accept
the penance does not bind in the case where the penance assigned
is manifestly unreasonable, that is, where (viewing present-day
practice) the penance does not correspond to the ability of the
penitent. It should be noted that a difficult or a long penance is
not at once to be judged as unreasonable.
2. Of its nature {per se) the obligation to fulfill the assigned
penance is grave. Hence a penitent is obliged sub gravi to fulfill
a grave penance enjoined by the confessor sub gravi. In a given
case, two conditions must be fulfilled in order that the penitent
de facto may be obliged sub gravi to fulfill the penance assigned:
(a) the penance itself must be grave; (b) the confessor must
intend to bind the penitent sub gravi. This is always presumed
when a grave penance is given for mortal sins, not yet directly
remitted, in which case alone a grave obligation can be imposed.28
25 II Cor. 2:7. Cf. Galtier, op. cit., p. 372, n. 490, for an interesting note
concerning present-day practice as an outgrowth of this early principle.
2« IV Lateran Council, cap. 21 (DB 437) ; Council of Trent, Sess. VI,
cap. 14 (DB 807) ; Sess. XIV, cap. 8 (DB 904-905) ; Codex I. C„ canon
887.
27 Cappello, op. cit., II, p. 257, n. 326.
28 Cf. Cappello, op. cit., II, pp. 260-261, n. 329. Cappello notes that while
some authors once thought that a grave penance could be imposed sub
gravi for venial sins or mortal sins already remitted directly, the opinion
followed above “ verior est et practice omnino tuta.” Cappello also notes
that a grave penance binding sub gravi for venial sins (and directly re-

Η

f;

Sacramental Satisfaction

37

This obligation ceases in the case of an invalid confession or
where absolution is not given (unless the penance is to be ful­
filled as a condition of future absolution).
3. The penitent must fulfill the assigned penance himself, and
at the time and in the manner prescribed by the confessor. If
no time has been determined, penance is ordinarily fulfilled after
absolution and as soon as conveniently possible.*
29
4. When sacramental satisfaction is fulfilled in the state of
mortal sin :
a) The penitent fulfills the precept or obligation placed upon
him by the confessor, because he fulfills the work assigned even
though the purpose of the work is not attained.
b) The penitent certainly does not thereby commit another
mortal sin. It is probable he does not commit any sin ; more
probably he is guilty of a venial sin.
c) . It probably attains its satisfactory effect when the penitent
regains the state of grace; even with the obstacle removed, how­
ever, it probably does not attain its meritorious effect.30
.

mitted mortal sins) “can only then be imposed when it is necessary to
cure the spiritual weakness {infirmitatem) of the penitent, and therefore it
is not so much a new imposition as it is the declaration of the obligation
which the penitent himself has.”
29 Cf. Galtier, op. cit., pp. 372-374, nn. 491-492.
30 St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, II (Turin: Marietti, 1879), lib. VI,
t. iv, nn. 522-523.

CHAPTER IV

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TWELFTH CENTURY
The theologians of the twelfth century occupied themselves at
length with questions pertaining to the sacrament of Penance.
Their main concern, however, was contrition. They recognized
that it was the most essential part of the sacrament and toward
it they directed the greater part of their investigations.1
Nevertheless they gave due attention to the matter of satisfac­
tion. The authors were acquainted with the severe penances of
the early Church. The writings of the Fathers had recorded
those penances accurately. In the twelfth century writings all
the essentials of the doctrine appear. If there is one point more
clearly stressed than any other, it is the necessity of satisfaction.
The predominant thought concerning satisfaction is that whatever penance is not performed here on earth will be exacted in
the excruciating torments of purgatory.2
The terminology is not yet uniform, but the basis for the elaboration of the great ^cholastics is found here.

Peter Abelard (1079-1142)
Peter Abelard was born in 1079 in the village of Pallet, about
ten miles east of Nantes in Brittany. His parents, and espe­
cially his father, Bérenger, gave him a taste for letters. More­
over, at an early age he began to travel in search of schools of
dialectics.
Abelard received his training in philosophy from the leaders
of the current opposing schools. First he studied under Roscelin
who had returned to his" Nominalist errors after his condemna­
tion at the Council of Soissons (1092-3). About 1100 Abelard
followed the lectures of William of Champeaux, leader of the
1 É. Amann, "Pénitence—Repentir," DTC XII, 1 (1933), 736.
2 É. Amann, “ La Pénitence privée ; son organization ; premières specula­
tions a son sujet,” DTC, XII, 1 (1933), 933-934.

38

!

i
i
I
i

,
·
t
;

;

!
I
;■
in

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

39

Realists, in Paris: He soon made himself a rival of the latter
and founded, in 1102, a school at Melun, one of the residences
of the court. From Melun he moved his school to Corbeil and
finally he returned to Paris, where his school was at SainteGeneviève.
Interest in theology took Peter to Laon to study under Anselm.
Disappointed in. his professor, he again became a rival and set
up his own chair of teaching. This move brought on him resent­
ment which forced his return to Paris. There he became, with
the title of canon (even though not in Sacred Orders), the
director of the School of Notre Dame. At the time he was only
thirty-four years of age. For five years, 1113 to 1118, Abelard
enjoyed a brilliant success in his teaching there.
His success at Notre Dame, as he himself admits, swelled his
pride.3 His affair with Eloise in 1118 marked the end of his
brilliant teaching career, and from this point his life is marked
with various clashes and difficulties.
After his first difficulty, Abelard embraced the monastic life at
the Abbey of Saint-Denys. His teaching there and at SaintAyoul near Provins emphasized his errors on the Trinity. He
was condemned at the Council of Soissons (1121) which met
under the Papal Legate, Conon d’Urrach. Abelard was com­
pelled to cast his own book, De Unitate et Trinitate Divina, into
the fire and was ordered to live at the Monastery of Saint-Médard.
The Legate, however, allowed him to return to Saint-Denys
shortly afterward. There his stay was shortened when he denied
the descent of the abbey from St. Denis the Areopagite.
Next Peter founded the school of the Paraclete in the desert
near Nogent-sur-Seine. His teaching and the works he had
written in solitude added to his errors on the Trinity. Apparently
these doctrinal matters were quickly noted by St. Bernard and
St. Norbert. But in 1125 Peter was elected abbot of Saint-Gildas
de Rhuys and thus escaped from the scene before action could
be taken against him. In 1129 he returned to the School of the
Paraclete.
In 1136 Abelard was back at the mount of Sainte-Geneviève
teaching. In 1139, the Cistercian Abbot, William of Saint­
3 EpEtola I seu Historia Calamitatum, cap. 5 (PL 178, 126).

t , t

[SB'"7'
1

—______

40 Sacramental Penance in the Tzvelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

Thierry, accused Peter of error and reported him to St. Bernard
and to Geoffroy, Bishop of Chartres.
In 1140-41, the Council of Sens condemned a series of proposi­
tions from Peter’s writings. Peter, denied the opportunity to
defend himself by open debate, decided to go to Rome. On the
way he learned at Lyons that Innocent II had confirmed the
sentence of the Council and had condemned him to monastical
enclosure.
At Cluny he was met and received by Peter Venerable, who
kept him at his abbey, comforted him and eventually brought
about his reconciliation wth St. Bernard. He likewise procured
permission from Rome for Abelard’s continued residence with
him. Finally, he inspired Abelard to retract his errors. Death
came to Abelard in his sixty-third year on April 12, 1142.
NATURE OF SATISFACTION

Abelard treats Penance in conjunction with the other sacraments, but does not explicitly call it a sacrament.4 Stressing the
part of the penitent in Penance, Abelard states that “ in the
reconciliation of the sinner to God there are three things, namely,
penance, confession, satisfaction.” 5
He makes no attempt to define satisfaction strictly, but he does
offer an adequate description. Peter identifies satisfaction with
the fruits of penance mentioned in the Gospels.

We call satisfaction, however, these punishments of the
present life, by which we satisfy for sins, by fasting, or
praying, by watching, or by mortifying the flesh in any
way, or by expending on the needy what we have taken
4 It should be noted that Abelard’s most important work is his Introductio
ad Theologiam. He composed it as a true summary of theology divided
into three general sections dealing respectively with Faith, Sacraments, and
Charity, and written sometime after 1133; only the first part has been
preserved. Fortunately, however, the Epitome Theologiae Christianae pre­
sents a summary of the original Introductio. It is regarded as a product
of the school of Abelard and constitutes a manual of Abelardian theology.
Peter's moral doctrine is contained in his Ethica seu Liber Dictus Scito Te
Ipsum.
5 Ethica seu Liber Dictus Scito Te Ipsum, cap. 17 (PL 178, 661 A);
cf. Epitome Theologiae Christianae, cap. 35 (PL 178, 1756 B).

1

I

(
1

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

41

away from ourselves ; which we have known to be called
by another name in the Gospel fruits of penance. . . .6
SATISFACTORY WORKS

z

Soine of the works by which satisfaction may be performed
are prayer, fasting, watching, mortification of the flesh, and alms­
giving.7 It is also interesting to note that Peter sees in the
humiliation of confession (at least where that confession is made
to other of the faithful) “ a great part of satisfaction.” 8
-

. ·

EFFECT OF SATISFACTION

The chief effect of satisfaction is the remission of the temporal
punishment due to sin and remaining even after the. eternal punish­
ment has been forgiven. The temporal punishment remitted by
6 Ibid., cap. 25: “Has autem poenas vitae praesentis, quibus de peccatis
satisfacimus, jejunando, vel orando, vigilando, vel quibuscumque modis
carnem macerando, vel quae nobis subtrahimus, egenis impendendo, satis­
factionem vocamus; quas alio nomine in Evangelio fructus poenitentiae
novimus appellari . .
(PL 178, 672 B).
7 Ibid.
&Ibid., cap, 24 (PL 178, 668 C). Confession to lay persons was a prac­
tice of the Middle Ages. It began in principle in the eleventh century.
Vacandard suggests that it was implied by Lanfranc and that a case was
related by Thietmar, Bishop of Mersebourg, in his Chronique, composed
in 1015. The spread of this custom, however, was due to the approbation
of Pseudo-Augustine (co. 1100) in the Liber de vera et falsa poenitentia,
c. 10 (PL 40, 1122). The practice showed: (1) regard for the necessity
and the value of confession; (2) regard for the part played in the sacra­
ment by the acts of the penitent. Its definitive demise is due in large
measure to the influence of Duns Scotus. But there was never any ques­
tion of a lay person having the power of the keys or the power to grant
absolution for sins. Cf. Abelard, Ethica, cap. 24 (PL 178, 668 D) ;
Epitome, cap. 36 (PL 178, 1756 D) ; Peter Lombard, Liber IV Sent., Dist.
XVII, cap. 4, n. 170, p. 853; Alexander of Hales, Summa Theologiae,
P. IV, q. 16, m. 1, a. 2 (p. 505, 2) ; St. Albert the Great, In IVum Sent.,
Dist. XVII, a. 39, solutio, ad lum (p. 719) ; a. 58-59 (pp. 754-755) ; St.
Bonaventure, In IVum Librum, Dist. XVI, p. Ill, dub. I ; Dist. XVII, p.
Ill, a. 1, q. 1 ; St. Thomas, In Lib. IV Sent., Dist. XVII, q. 3, a. 3, sol.
2, ad lum; Duns Scotus, In IV Lib. Sent., Dist. XIV, q. 4, n. 5 (p. 155).
For further treatment, cf. E. Vacandard, “ Confession du 1er Au XIII*
Siècle,” DTC, HI, 1 (1908), 877-878; Galtier, De Paenitentia, p. 396, n. 516.

42 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
satisfaction may be viewed principally as the punishment other­
wise due in purgatory, although such punishment is sometimes
sent by God in the present life.9
There is also a medicinal effect achieved by the satisfaction
which cures the vice.30
NECESSJTV OF SATISFACTION

The need for the performance of satisfaction on the part of
man flo\vs from the debt of temporal punishment remaining after
the forgiveness of sin and of the eternal punishment due to it.
The procedure of Abelard’s argument is very interesting, espe­
cially because it is fundamentally the form used in the most
advanced of the Scholastics.
A sinner cannot achieve forgiveness through penance by weep­
ing over his sins solely out of fear of punishment or judgment.
Rather the love of God and hatred of sin must be the motivat­
ing forces. Besides, one attempting to excite true penance in
himself does so in vain as long as he continues to hold the prop­
erty of another unjustly. Restitution must precede fruitful
penance and acceptable sacrifices.11
It follows that fruitful penance for sin is had when sorrow
and contrition of soul proceed from the love of God rather than
from fear of punishment.12 By this penance the forgiveness of
sin is achieved, a forgiveness of both guilt and eternal punish­
ment.
With this groaning and contrition of heart, however,
which we term true penance, sin does not remain, whether
this is contempt of God or consent to evil, because the
love of God inspiring this groaning does not suffer guilt.
In this groaning we are immediately reconciled to God,
and we gain pardon of the preceding sin, according to
the prophet: In whatever hour the sinner shall have
groaned, he will be saved; that is, he will be made
worthy of the salvation of his soul. He does not say:
in what jrear, or in what month, or in what week, or on
a Ibid., cap. 19 (PL 178, 665 A) ; cap. 25 (PL 178, 672 A).
10 Ibid., cap. 24 (PL 178, 669 B).
n Ethica, cap. 18 (PL 178, 661 B-D).
12 Ibid., cap. 19 (PL 178, 664 D).

The Doctrine of the Tzvelfth Century

43

which day, but in what hour : in order that he may show
him worthy of pardon without delay and that eternal
punishment is not due him, in which the condemnation
of sin consists.13

That this is true appears also from the fact that a sinner dying
with this true penance will not incur the pains of hell, even though
he be prevented from going to confession and performing satisfac­
tion.14
Yet God does not forgive penitents all the punishment due to
their sins, but only the eternal punishment. That is why many
penitents, kept from performing satisfaction in this life, are
punished in the fires of purgatory even though they are not
condemned to hell.15
Hence satisfaction is to be performed with great care and
every effort in order that there will be no temporal punishment
to be expiated in the future.16 Indeed when the Gospel warns
of the need of bringing forth fruits befitting repentance, it in­
tends to say :
... be reconciled to God here in such a manner by
correcting what you have committed with fitting satis­
faction, so that afterwards He may in no wise find what
He Himself may punish ; and anticipate graver punish­
ments with milder ones. For as St. Augustine asserts :
The punishments of the future life, although they be
Purgatorial, are more grave than all those of the present
life.17
iSiIbid.: “Cum hoc autem gemitu et contritione cordis, quam veram
poenitentiam dicimus, peccatum non permanet, hoc est contemptus Dei, sive
consensus in malum, quia charitas Dei hunc gemitum inspirans, non patitur
culpam. In hoc statim gemitu Deo reconciliamur, et praecedentis peccati
veniam assequimur, juxta illud prophetae: Quacunque hora peccator in­
gemuerit, salvus erit; hoc est, salute animae suae dignus efficietur. Non
ait : quo anno, vel quo mense, sive qua hebdomada, vel quo die, sed qua
hora: ut sine dilatione venia dignum ostendat; nec ei poenam aeternam
deberi, in qua consistit condemnatio peccati.”
"Ibid. (PL 178, 665 A).
15 Ibid.; cf. Epitome, cap. 37 (PL 178, 1757 D).
- 16 Ibid., cap. 25 (PL 178, 672 C) ; cf. Epitome, cap. 37 (PL 178, 1758 A).
17 Ibid.:
. digna satisfactione quod deliquistis, emendando ita hic
reconciliamini Deo, ut deinceps quod ipse puniat nequaquam inveniat; et

44 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

Abelard adds that God sometimes may send purgatorial punish­
ments in this life as well as in the next, if man himself be negligent
in performing the due measure of satisfaction.38 One applica­
tion of this teaching may come in the day of universal judg­
ment. The length of that day is uncertain because many of the
faithful, either by reason of neglect or impossibility, must there
be punished to compensate for the satisfaction they omitted.*19
POSSIBILITY OF SATISFACTION

Although he is so thoroughly intent upon the necessity of
satisfaction, Abelard does not deem its possibility worthy of as
much attention. Scripture commands satisfaction in the words
of St. John the Baptist. Hence it must be possible. Explicitly,
St. Paul states the principle that if we punish ourselves, rve will
not be I further punished.

If, he says, we judged ourselves, we should not thus be
judged (I Cor. 11:31): which is to say: If we our­
selves punished or amended our sins, they would in no
wise be punished more gravely by Him. Truly great is
the mercy of God, since He forgives us by our own
. judgment, in order that He may not punish us Himself
with a more grave [judgment] .20
CONDITIONS

This satisfaction is not the mere suffering of a punishment.
The will must have a part in it. Otherwise, why so many efforts
to show its necessity? If satisfaction comes to a man and is
valid whether he desires it or not, why urge him to make it?
It is true that Abelard does not make a definite point of the
graviores poenas mitioribus praevenite. Ut enim beatus asserit Augustinus :
Poenae vitae futurae, etsi purgatoriae sint, graviores sunt istis omnibus
vitae praesentis” (PL 178, 672 B). Cf. Epitome, cap. 37 (PL 178, 1758 A).
ia Ibid. (PL 178, 672 A).
19 Ibid., cap. 19 (PL 178, 665 B).
20 Ibid., cap. 25 : " Si nos, inquit, dijudicaremus, non utique dijudicaremur
(I Cor. 11:31): quod est dicere: Si nos ipsi nostra puniremus, vel cor­
rigeremus peccata, nequaquam ab ipso gravius essent punienda. Magna
profecto misericordia Dei, cum nos nostro judicio dimittit, ne ipse puniat
graviori” (PL 178, 672 A).

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

45

, voluntarily of satisfaction, but he does make satisfaction an
obligation in the fulfillment of which man himself can be faithful
or negligent.21
Satisfaction is to be performed during this life only, in con­
tradistinction-to purgation by God which may take place in this
life or in the next.22
The state of grace also seems to be a condition of true satisfac­
tion. In one place, Abelard rules out the possibility of a sinner
performing fruitful penance for one mortal sin, while at the same
time he retains another crime. True penance, inspired by love
of God, does not permit the retention of a single mortal sin.23

'

.

j
t

4.
|j .
I

I
I
.

For if the love of God, as it must, moves me and leads
my soul to this, that I may grieve over this consent on
account of this reason alone because in it 1 have of­
fended God, I do not see how the same love for the
same reason would not force me to repent of that other
contempt; that is, place my mind in that resolve, in order
that whatever excess of mine should occur to memory,
I may grieve over it in like manner, and be prepared to
make satisfaction.24

Abelard finds additional foundation in the fact that whoever per­
severes in the love of God will be sayed. Yet that salvation can
in no wise be gained where even one mortal sin is retained.25
Therefore the love of God rules out the retention of even one
mortal sin.
In another place Abelard treats of those whose satisfaction is
insufficient by reason of the ignorance or negligence of the confessor. He states that such penitents will not be damned by the
error of the confessor because the guilt and eternal punishment
21 Ethica, cap. 25 (PL 178, 672 A).
22 Ibid,, cap. 19 (PL 178, 665 A) ; cap. 25 (PL 178, 672 A).
22 Ibid., cap. 20 (PL 178, 665 B).
.
24Ibid.: “Si enim amor Dei, sicut oportet, ad hoc me inducit, atque
animum trahit, ut de hoc consensu doleam propter hoc tantum quia in eo
Deum offendi, non video qualiter idem amor de illo contemptu eadem de
causa poenitere non cogat; hoc est, in eo proposito mentem meam statuat,
ut quis excessus meus memoriae occurrerit, de ipso similiter doleam, et ad
satisfaciendum paratus sim” (PL 178, 665 C).
22 Ibid. (PL 178, 665 D).

......... ................ ..... ...........................................................

46 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

I

of the penitent’s sins have been forgiven before he came to con­
fession or undertook to make satisfaction.

For the error of the prelates does not condemn the sub­
jects, nor does the fault of the former blame the latter;
nor does there remain now any guilt in the subjects by
which they might die, whom, as we have said, penance
had already previously reconciled to God, that is, before
they came to confession or undertook the assignment of
satisfaction.26

In the first instance, Abelard demands for fruitful penance,
repentance for all mortal crimes. Since he apparently holds to the
necessity of perfect contrition, such repentance brings about the
justification of the sinner, the presence of grace. In the second
instance, he views this justification as a prelude to confession
and satisfaction. But even if this interpretation seems to press
the meaning too closely, some force may be gathered from the
fact that Abelard sees in the love of God, which promotes true
penance, the source of the will to make satisfaction.
In a general way also, Abelard insinuates the need of the help
of grace for- satisfaction. For God inspires repentance and thus
aids man to escape eternal damnation.27
sacramental satisfaction

Satisfaction is to be assigned by the priest-confessor.
Finally, the priests, to whom the souls of those confessing have been intrusted, have the power to enjoin the
satisfactions of penance on them, in order that those,
who have wrongly and proudly used their own judgment
in despising God may be punished by the judgment of
a power belonging to another ; and they do that the more
securely, the more faithfully in obeying their prelates
they follow not their own, but their [prelates’] will.28
26 Ibid., cap. 25 : “ Non enim error praelatorum subjectos damnat, nec
illorum vitium istos accusat ; nec jam in subjectis culpa remanet qua moriantur, quos jam antea poenitentia Deo, ut diximus, reconciliaverat, prius scilicet
quam ad confessionem venirent vel satisfactionis institutionem susciperent ”
(PL 178, 671 D) ; cap. 24 (PL 178, 668 D).
w Ibid., cap. 20 (PL 178, 666 B).
28Ethica, cap. 24: “Denique sacerdotes quibus animae confitentium sunt

.

f

|

.
,
(
b
b

/
'

;

1
'
'

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

47

The priest not only has power to enjoin, satisfaction, but he also
has an obligation. Indeed if he should fail to assign it or should
assign it poorly, when the penitent is willing and prepared to
obey, the omission will be charged to the priest rather than to
the penitent.29
' At times Abelard seems to indicate that there are fixed penances
for certain sins. For he teaches that satisfaction should be under­
taken according to the assignments of the Fathers or according
to the assignments fixed by the canons.30
Yet he teaches also that satisfaction must be assigned accord­
ing to the quantity and kind of the sin. It is true this could be
done with the penitential canons, but even if he intends to sup­
pose fixed penances, he points out that priests should know how
to moderate them in their application.31
Abelard recognizes that there are grave sins which are to be
corrected with grave punishment of satisfaction, and lesser or
venial sins for which daily prayer may sufficiently satisfy.32 Fie
teaches that, if satisfaction is not enjoined in the measure in
which it should be assigned, God Who punishes all sins in due
proportion will see that equity of satisfaction is meted out accord­
ing to the quantity of the sin.33
This satisfaction will in turn vary according to the kind of the
sin. For the penitent who seeks the medicine for his wound
must reveal that wound to the doctor “ in order that a suitable
cure may be applied.” The priest, by whom satisfaction is to be
enjoined, holds the place of the physician.34
commissae, satisfactiones poenitentiae illis habent injungere; ut qui male
arbitrio suo et superbe usi sunt Deum contemnendo, alienae potestatis
arbitrio corrigantur; et tanto securius id agant; quanto melius praelatis suis
obediendo non tam suam, quam illorum voluntatem sequuntur” (PL 178,
779 D) ; ibid., cap. 25 (PL 178, 670 B-C) ; cf. Epitome, cap. 36 (PL 178,
1756 D).
a» Ibid.
so Ibid., cap. 25 (PL 178, 672 C).
si Ibid. (PL 178, 670 D).
^Ibid., cap. 15 (PL 178, 658 D) ; cap. 16 (PL 178, 659 C).
33 Ibid., cap. 25 (PL 178, 672 A).
** Ibid., cap. 24 (PL 178, 669 B).

48 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

Hugh of Saint-Vi ctor (.1097-1141)
Hugh of Saint-Victor was born about 1097. Authorities are
divided in their opinions concerning the place of Hugh’s birth.35
According to one opinion, Hugh was born at the manor of
Hartingham in Saxony. His father was Conrad, Count of
Blankenburg. His uncle Reinhard, who had studied in Paris
under William of Champeaux, was Bishop of Halberstadt. Hugh
was educated in the monastery of Saint Paneras at Hamerleve,
near Halberstadt. There he later took the habit of the Canons
Regular of Saint Augustine.
According to another opinion, Hugh was born in Flanders or
Lorraine of humble extraction. He left home at an early age
and went to Germany where he joined the monasteiy at Hamerleve.
At any rate Hugh arrived at the monastery of Saint-Victor in
Paris about 1118. Its founder, William of Champeaux, elected
Bishop of Chalons in 1112, had been succeeded at Saint-Victor
by Gilduin. It was under Gilduin’s rule and guidance that Hugh
spent the rest of his life, studying, teaching, and writing.
Thomas, the Prior and director of studies, whb had assisted
the bishop from time to time, was assassinated on August 20,
1133, for defending the rights of the bishop. Hugh succeeded
him as director of studies and probably as Prior also.
His death came while he was in the prime of life on February
11, 1141.
Hugh’s genius and unremitting toil gave him an extensive and
profound knowledge in letters, philosophy, and theology. He
applied that knowledge to several written works.
In the various editions of Hugh’s works, many books or opuscula have been ascribed to him which could not have been the
product of his labor. In the field of theology, the Summa Sen­
tentiarum was traditionally ascribed to Hugh of Saint-Victor.
At one time the opinion of scholars concluded that Hugh actually
was the author ; later scholarship either opposes the authenticity
or at least views as very doubtful its ascription to Hugh.30
Hugh’s most notable work is De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei.
«F. Vernet, “Hughes de Saint-Victor,” DTC, VII, 1 (1922), 240-242.
se Ibid., 253-256.

I

*

i
r

,
J
\
j

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

49

Written before 1133, it is a true compendium of theology in two
books. Because of the doubtful authenticity of the Summa Sen­
tentiarum and because De Sacramentis contains all the essentials
of Hugh’s teaching, the latter is used as the exclusive source for
Hugh’s treatment of satisfaction.
NATURE OF SATISFACTION

Hugh of Saint-Victor makes exterior penance and satisfaction
synonymous. Penance is twofold, interior and exterior. In­
terior penance is found in contrition of the heart, and through
it the guilt of the disordered will is amended. Exterior penance
is found in the affliction of the flesh, and through it the guilt
of inferior action is punished.37
Satisfaction, or exterior penance, is the fruit of contrition, or
interior penance. For penance is one thing and the fruits of
penance are another.

.

j

* '

Penance is sorrow for past commission, when you grieve
that you have done what is evil. Therefore when you
reject and condemn your evil [actions], you have
penance ; when, however, by subsequent satisfaction, you
both punish and correct your evil [actions], you have
the fruits of penance. If that which you have done
displeases you, you do penance. If you pursue and
punish what you have done, you perform the fruits of
penance. Penance is the rejection of what has been
done ; the fruits of penance are the correction of the
crime.38
SATISFACTORY WORKS

There is no enumeration of the works by which exterior
penance or satisfaction may be made. There are indications that
both prayer and almsgiving afford means of satisfaction, and it
would seem logical to conclude that “ affliction of the flesh ”
includes fasting. When Hugh writes about the souls of the de­
parted, he points to Holy Mass, prayer, and almsgiving as means
37 De Sacramentis Christianae Pidei, Lib. Il, p. xiv, c. 2 (PL 176,
554-555).
38ibid. (PL 176, 555 A),

50 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

by which the living can help them.39 The same works should
certainly be profitable as satisfaction for the living themselves.
Hugh explicitly refers to almsgiving as a work of satisfaction.4'’
EFFECT OF SATISFACTION

The effect of satisfaction is the complete correction of sin, after
which the soul is prepared to enter heaven and thus to avoid the
terrible pains of purgatory.41
NECESSITY OF SATISFACTION

When man offends God by mortal sin, he contracts a twofold
bond; he is bound by a hardening or blindness of the mind
(obduratio mentis) in the present and by the debt of future
damnation. The blindness of the mind constitutes the interior
darkness in which the sinner is held for the present, and which
must be remitted in this life; otherwise the sinner will be cast
into exterior darkness in the next life.42
Hugh of St. Victor holds that the blindness of the mind and
the debt of future damnation can be and sometimes are remitted,
but he also teaches that such remission does not mean that the
debt of satisfaction for sin is also removed.43 He does not state
explicitly that this debt of satisfaction is a debt of temporal
punishment. He does teach that this debt is perfectly compatible
with salvation, salvation indeed through purgatorial fire. Whatever man fails to purge from his soul in this life through satisfaction will be exacted in purgatory in the next life.44 The debt
of satisfaction must therefore constitute a debt of temporal punishment.
Satisfaction is to be made to God and constitutes one of the
remedies which God has instituted for the remission of sin.45
Ordinarily man is obliged to work out this debt of satisfaction
*”Ibid., p. xvi, c. 7 (PL 176, 594-595) ; cf. c. 6 (PL 176, 593-594).
*° Ibid., p. xiv, c. 6 (PL 176, 562 C).
’ '
Ibid., c. 3 (PL 176, 556 B-C).
42 De Sacramentis, Lib. II, p. xiv, c. 8 (PL 176, 565 B-C).
4S Ibid. (PL 176, 567 B-C).
44 Ibid., c. 3 (PL 176, 556 B-C).
Ibid. (PL 176, 555 D) ; cf. c. 8 (PL 176, 567 B-C)

(
J

;

v
a

1
s

>.
■
t

>

^28554
The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

51

in this life, and anj^ failure to do so proceeding from contempt
would be punished by God.43 Yet the impossibility of perform­
ing satisfaction or the fact that satisfaction was not complete in
this life would not condemn the penitent for eternity.47
POSSIBILITY OF SATISFACTION

Hugh of St. Victor does not offer an explicit treatment of how
satisfaction is possible to man. He implies that man is entirely
dependent on the mercy and the grace of God.48 He affirms
that man can make satisfaction. The sinner can do enough to
satisfy, he cannot do too much.49
CONDITIONS

Hugh indicates with considerable clarity many of the conditions
now demanded for satisfaction. First of all satisfaction is to
be made to God; hence the implication is that the work of satis­
faction must be acceptable to God.50
Man must satisfy during the present life which is the exclu­
sive time of satisfaction. After this life there remains only
purgation.51
Man must also enjoy the state of grace and the possession of
charity. Hugh of St. Victor supposes charity, the foundation
of salvation, as a prerequisite to satisfaction.52 The reason is
that God sees the heart of man and demands that the heart be
converted before man’s works are acceptable.
On the' part of the work offered as satisfaction, Hugh posits
certain other conditions. That work must be voluntary, since
the principal value of satisfaction comes from the will.53 That
work must be good.34 It must also be penal, since punishment
Ibid. (PL 176, 556 B-C).
Ibid.; cf. c. 6 (PL 176, 56Û D-564 A).
48 Op. cit., Lib. II, p. xiv, c. 8 (PL 176, 565 C).
Ibid., c. 2 (PL 176, 555 B-C).
Ibid., c. 3 (PL 176, 555 D).
Ibid. (PL 176, 556 B) ; cf. c. 4 (PL 176, 559 B-C).
Ibid. (PL 176, 556 C).
as ibid., c. 6 (PL 176, 560 D-564 A) ; cf. c. 3 (PL 176, 556 B).
s* Ibid., c. 5 (PL 176, 560 C).

52 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

of sin is of the essence of satisfaction.55 It must proceed with
the help of God’s grace, because God Himself is responsible for
all the good in man.50
SA CRA Μ E NTA L S A TI S FA CTIO N

Hugh of St. Victor does not make any explicit distinction
between sacramental and extra-sacramental satisfaction. Indeed
it would be more accurate to say that he treats of satisfaction
only in so far as it is sacramental.
While he does not list contrition, confession, and satisfaction
as parts of the sacrament, he does assume that those three things
must be performed by the penitent. He admits that contrition
will secure the remission of the blindness of mind which follows
upon mortal sin. Yet contrition does not secure the complete
remission of sin; the total or entire remedy instituted by God
toward that remission must ordinarily be applied.57 In Hugh's
opinion, sacramental absolution removes the debt of future eternal
punishment, satisfaction pays the debt of temporal punishment.
Sacramental satisfaction is to be assigned by the priest in con­
fession. Hugh stresses this point in indicating the difference
between penance for venial sins and penance for mortal sins.

There is a certain common penance in the Church, which
we perform each day toward one another; in which
when prayer has been offered for one another, we attain
indulgence and remission for daily and lesser sins. But
we reveal the guilt (reatum') of the more serious sin to
the priest in individual confession; and when we have
offered the performance of satisfaction according to his
counsel, we obtain the indulgence of sin.58
The priest must enjoin a proportioned satisfaction. “ Accord­
ing to the quantity of the crime, the measure of the correction
is to be judged.” The command of the Inspired Word calls for
the performance of fruits befitting repentance.59
35 Ibid., c. 2 (PL 176, 555 A).
56 Ibid., c. 8 (PL 176, 569 C) ; cf. c. 4 (PL 176, 557 B) ; c. 6 (PL
176, 561 A).
97 Op. cit., Lib. II, p. xiv, c. 8 (PL 176, 567 B-C).
58 Ibid., c. 1 (PL 176, 552 D-553 A) ; cf. c. 7 (PL 176, 564 C).
59 Ibid., c. 2 (PL 176, 555 A-B) ; cf. c. 7 (PL 176, 564 B-C).

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

?
r

·

7?.· ..^*7.? - .'.s

?

■
I

!
"
I .
1

/
1

53

t

The penitent should accept and perform the satisfaction as­
signed by the priest. The penitent should not be so much con­
cerned with the assignment of condign satisfaction by the priest,
as, with the performance of what the priest assigns. As long as
the sinner has made the beginning of satisfaction, as long as he
has the good will which is of principal interest to God, he will
be. saved from eternal damnation. The satisfaction omitted on
earth will be completed by the purgation of purgatorial fires ; yet
since the punishment of purgatory is so extreme, the first in­
tention should be to fulfill the debt of temporal punishment on
earth.60
Hugh of St. Victor mentions the occasion of conversion at
the hour of death as one which prevents the performance of satisfaction.61 He insinuates, though he does not enumerate, other
situations in which necessity might prevent its completion.62

,

)

r7.

Λ

Robert Pullen (co. 1080-1146/1153)
Robert Pullen, English Cardinal, philosopher, and theologian of
the twelfth century, was bom in England about 1080.63
It seems that he studied in Paris during the first decades of
. the twelfth century. Having returned to England, Robert was
teaching Holy Scripture at Oxford in 1133, being one of the
first of the celebrated teachers in the schools which were afterwards organized into Oxford University. He is thereby rated
.as one of the founders of Oxford.64
In 1134 Robert appears as the archdeacon of Rochester. It is
recorded that King Henry I offered him a bishopric which he
refused. Some time after the death of Henry I (December 1,
1135), Robert went to Paris. A letter from Saint Bernard to
the Bishop of Rochester in 1140 sought permission for Robert to
remain and teach in Paris.65
60 Ibid., c. 3 (PL 176, 555 D-556 C).
61 Ibid., c. 5 (PL 176, 559 Ό-560 C).
™ Ibid., c. 6 (PL 176, 560 D-564 A).
63 Robert Pullen is also known by these surnames : Pullus, Pullan, Pully,
Pullevn.
«Cf. É. Amann, “Robert Pulleyn,” DTC, XIII, 2 (1937), 2753-2754.
»s St. Bernard, Epistola, CCV (PL 182, 372).

54 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

Robert was still archdeacon of Rochester in 1143. Yet in 1145
he appeared in Rome as Cardinal-Priest of Saint Eusebius and
Chancellor of the Roman Church. He countersigned the last Bull
of Pope Lucius II ; he countersigned the Bulls of Pope Eugene
III until September 2, 1146. That is the last known date in
his life.
Scholars have recognized in Robert Pullen a defender of ortho­
doxy as against the encroachments of the rationalistic tendency
represented by Abelard.
Robert Pullen wrote a compendium of theology called Senten­
tiarum Theologicarum Libri Octo. It was for some time the
official textbook in theology for the schools of Western Europe.
The Sentences of Peter Lombard superseded it later. Com­
pared to Peter Lombard, Robert seems to have been more in­
clined to accept the strict interpretation of ecclesiastical tradition
than to yield to the growing demands of dialectical method in
theology and philosophy. The Lombard finally gained recogni­
tion, however, and it was his work which decided the fate of
scholastic theology in the thirteenth century.
Robert’s Summa was first published by the Benedictine, Dom
Mathoud, in Paris, in 1655.
NATURE OF SATISFACTION

Robert Pullen is interesting as a witness to the theological
development of his times. His testimony is valuable because he
seems to offer the most complete treatment of the sacrament of
Penance among the available works of the twelfth century. The
editor of his work, Dom Mathoud, praises him in these words:

Let it suffice to have said one thing in favor of Pullen,
that there are few among the writers of his century who
expressed more clearly or more elegantly than he the
nature of sacramental confession, its necessity, the cir­
cumstances to be explained down to the very atoms, like­
wise its various effects and functions, as the benevolent
reader will perceive by a not unprofitable study.06
ecD. Hugonis Mathoud, Observationes ad Libros Sententiarum jRuberti
Pulli, ad librum sextum, cap. 61 (PL 186, 1099 D) : "Unum in gratiam

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

55

Though he did not formulate a definition of satisfaction,
Robert Pullen indicates that satisfaction is the means by which,
through certain works, the temporal punishment due to already
remitted sin is acquitted.
SATISFACTORY WORKS

The works by which satisfaction may be performed are classed
under three general types : discipline, prayer, and almsgiving.*17

Indeed, prayer appeases God; discipline punishes the
penitent; almsgiving labors for the advantage of our
brothers. Deservedly therefore in these three ways to
one diligently trying to rise from his sins the capability
of his desire is at length given, and after the desire
pardon; after pardon, however, that meanness by which
it is anguish to man both to abandon old habits and to
begin new, by the same three ways is diminished little
by little, salvation is restored. Those same [ways]
satisfy for sins ; lastly, they moreover adorn this life
with good morals, and indeed grant and increase future
life.68
EFFECT OF SATISFACTION

The effect of satisfaction is the remission of the temporal
punishment due to already remitted sin. This temporal punish­
ment remitted through satisfaction is primarily the fire of purga­
tory; it may sometimes be understood, however, as punishment
otherwise to be visited upon the sinner in this world.
Pulli dixisse sufficiat, paucos esse inter sui saeculi scriptores, qui confessionis
sacramentalis naturam, necessitatem, circumstantias ad ipsas usque atomos
declarandas, varios item ejus effectus muniaque, aut eo clarius aut elegantius
expresserit, ut non ingrato studio lector benevolus advertet.”
07 Sententiarum Theologicarum Libri Octo, Liber VII, cap. 1 (PL 186,
911 D).
08 Ibid., cap. 2 : “ Quippe oratio Deum placat ; disciplina poenitentem
castigat ; eleemosyna fratrum commodis insudat. Merito igitur tribus his
modis exire a peccatis diligenter conanti facultas voti tandem datur, et post
votum venia, post veniam autem mendicitas illa qua anxium est homini et
consueta relinquere, et nova inchoare, eisdem tribus paulatim imminuitur,
salus reparatur. Eadem pro peccatis satisfaciunt; postremo autem vitam
hanc moribus ornant, futuram vero largiuntur et amplificant” (PL 186,
913 D-914 A),

MU

56 Sacramental Penance in the Tzuelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
NECESSITY OF SATISFACTION

iil

His statement of the necessity of this satisfaction is almost a
summary of the whole doctrine. After compunction of heart,
hope of pardon, and confession there is need for the fruits of
penance. “ For just as compunction is nothing without hope,
and both of them nothing without confession; so the three to­
gether are inefficacious, if when lime is at hand and you are
able, you either do not receive from the priest the lamentations
of penance, or having received them you little consider their
accomplishment.” (i!1 In this statement, Robert I’ullen seems to
make a clear-cut distinction between the will to accept satisfaction
and the actual performance of satisfaction.
Satisfaction is necessary because “ whoever offends is guilty
of punishment; if lie flees the punishment, the offense in­
creases.” 70 What this punishment is will appear more clearly
from Robert’s doctrine on the forgiveness of sin.
After a mortal sin, man is bound by the spiritual chains of the
sin itself and of the punishment due to sin.71 This sin may be
forgiven in such a way as to remove only the debt of eternal
punishment, or also the debt of temporal punishment. In the
author’s own words:
Truly the guilt is forgiven in two ways, either that it
may no longer remain unto damnation, or that it may
not remain even unto punishment. Crimes are condoned
in the first manner as soon as the heart is crushed by
compunction. . . . God therefore forgets our offenses
when He deems that those converted by compunction do
not deserve hell. . . . Likewise to him who proposes to
accuse himself to the priest, He remits not only the sin,
but also the impiety of the sin, that is, both that he has
sinned, and that he has failed so often and at such a

U1

«° Sententiarum Theologicarum Libri Octo, Liber VI, cap. 51 : “ Sicut
enim compunctio nihil est sine spe, nec utrumque sine confessione; ita tria
simul inefficacis sunt, si cum tempus suppetit et possis, aut a presbytero
poenitentiae lamenta non recipis, aut recepta peragere parvipendis ” (PL
186, 901 A).
™'Ibid.: “Quisquis offendit, supplicii reus est; si supplicium refugit
offensa crescit” (PL 186, 901 C).
” Ibid., cap. 60 (PL 186, 908 D).

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

57

time, and in such a place, likewise in such a way, and
if there are other like circumstances, in however many
species.72
Moreover, he adds, this remission must take place in this life.
In vain does man hope for pardon of a mortal sin in the future
if he leaves this life without pardon.
Mortal sin can be forgiven man in the second way, namely,
so that it does not remain even unto punishment, either in this
life or in the next.

But some are absolved from the punishment due to the
crime now, some in the future ; those are forgiven now
' Vvho complete satisfaction before death ; others are for­
given after death whose atonement is not completed until
after death.73
Those who are not absolved from punishment until the next life
will suffer there the pains of purgatory which are far graver
than any of the punishments of the present life.74 It is there­
fore of great importance that satisfaction be performed in this
life so that the temporal punishments of purgatory may be
avoided. Hence Robert stresses that since man offends God by
indulging in the evil sweets of sin, he must please God through
some satisfaction painful to himself.75 He likewise points out
that the aim which the confessor should have in mind in the
injunction of present penance is the avoidance of future punish­
ment.™

j'

I

f
!

72Liber VII, cap. 1: “Nimirum dupliciter culpa dimittitur, aut ne sit
ulterius ad damnationem, aut nec saltem ad poenam. Primo genere vitia
condonantur, quam cito cor compunctione conteritur. . . . Deus ergo nostras
obliviscitur offensas, dum compunctione conversos non reputat pertinere ad
gehennam. Item illi qui se apud sacerdotem accusare proponit, remittit
non solum peccatum, verum etiam peccati impietatem, id est, et quod pec­
cavit, et quod toties talique tempore, talique loco, tali item modo, et si
quae similia sunt aliis quotquot generibus deliquit” (PL 186, 911 D).
73 Ibid. : “ Sed a delicti poena quidam modo, quidam solvuntur in futuro ;
ii modo, qui satisfactionem perficiunt ante mortem; illi post mortem quorum
expiatio non consummatur nisi post mortem” (PL 186, 912 D).
™ Liber VI, cap. 51 (PL 186, 901 C) ; cap. 59 (PL 186, 908 C) ; cap.
61 (PL 186, 910 D).
73 Ibid., cap. 52 (PL 186, 902 A).
™ Ibid. (PL 186, 902 B).

58 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth ami Thirteenth Centuries
This satisfaction is not absolutely necessary in every case.
True sorrow with hope of pardon is sufficient to bring salvation;
hence in a case where it is impossible to assign or perform satis­
faction, eternal life may be postponed, but it is not lost." If,
however, a sinner should contemn satisfaction when he is able
to perform it, he will lose eternal life.77
78
This doctrine about the persistence of temporal punishment
after the forgiveness of sin and of its eternal punishment is
thrown into greater relief by the comparison Robert makes be­
tween Baptism and Penance. In Baptism, the grace of God
requires only faith in the receiver and thus remits all things
gratis; the remission of sins achieved through Baptism requires
no penance, no purgatorial punishment after the remission. On
the other hand, while simple confession likewise achieves the
complete removal of the guilt of sin (and eternal damnation),
satisfaction is ordinarily required after that remission.79
Therefore since the heavens are said to be opened in
Baptism, why is that not also said in confession, unless
on this account that after confession the fruits of penance
remain, after Baptism they do not remain?80

In summary, Robert taught that by reason of his sin, man is
bound by a debt of temporal punishment even after the sin itself
and the damnation deserved by that sin have been forgiven. In
this life man may pay that debt of temporal punishment by
satisfaction. In the next life, whatever punishment man has not
remitted through satisfaction will be exacted in purgatory in a
much more painful manner.
POSSIBILITY OF SATISFACTION

The possibility of man’s performance of satisfaction as effec­
tive of its purpose does not form a special section of Robert's
77 Ibid., cap. 58 (PL 186, 908 B).
16 Ibid., cap. 59 (PL 186, 908 C) ; cf. cap. 51 (PL 186 901 B)
79 Liber V, cap. 27 (PL 186, 849 D-850 A).
80 Ibid., cap. 29 : ‘‘Cum igitur coeli dicantur aperti in baptismate, cur
etiam id non dicitur in confessione, nisi ideo quod post confessionem restant
fructus poenitentiae, post baptismum non restant? ” (PL 186, 851 A).

1

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

59

doctrine. It is assumed, however, and stated at least equivalently.
Thus, Robert everywhere urges and instructs men to perform
satisfaction because of the fact that such performance will enable
them to «void in whole or in part the punishments of purgatory.
Speaking of the necessity of confession and satisfaction, he states
that “ they are also necessary since present punishment diligently
undertaken wards off the far greater future purgatorial punish­
ments.” 81 To go even further, he states that once man has
fulfilled the full temporal punishment due to his sins, whether
that fulfillment be accomplished completely on earth, or partly
on earth and partly in purgatory, he not only avoids further
punishment, but gains eternal life.
When, however, the penance has been completed (not
always that which man imposes but which God fore­
knows; indeed if man does less than he should, God
completes it by purgatorial punishments, or in this
world; nor is our satisfaction superfluous, since if it is
full, it entirely removes; if it is less, it partly diminishes
. the scourge of God due to our prevarication) ; when the
penance has been completed, I say, the guilty person is
absolved by God, not only so that he no longer must be
punished for sin, but also so that with the purgation
completed he becomes fit for heaven.82
CONDITIONS

There are likewise several conditions under which satisfaction
must be performed. The person must be enjoying temporal life
and the state of grace and charity. The former appears from
the fact that Robert calls the punishment of satisfaction a present
81 Liber VI, cap. 59 (PL 186, 908 C).
82 Ibid., cap 61 : “ Peracta autem poenitentia (non semper quam homo
imponit sed quam Deus praenovit; quippe si homo minus quam decet facit,
Deus purgatoriis id supplet poenis, aut in hoc saeculo ; nec nostra superfluit
satisfactio, quoniam si plena est, omnino tollit; sin vero diminuta, partim
imminuit flagellum Dei nostrae praevaricationi debitum). Peracta, inquam,
poenitentia, reus per Deum absolvitur, non solum ut non amplius pro
peccato puniri oporteat, verum etiam ut purgatione facta coelo fiat idoneus "
(PL 186, 910 D-911 A).

60 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

one 83 and also from the fact that he makes satisfaction the means
by which temporal punishment is acquitted before death.84
The possession of grace and charity is stressed even more. In
the first place, repentance must extend to all mortal sins. And
the man who continues to offend in even one mortal sin cannot
be forgiven any mortal sins. For God either forgives all or
none. Hence one who remains impenitent for even one sin
“ does not obtain from an angry God the favors to be given
rather to the reconciled.” 85
In the matter of confession also, Robert teaches the need of
opening every wound in order to obtain forgiveness. This, he
states, holds true even if the sinner has contrition for all sins,
including the one he holds back in confession, and performs
satisfaction for all his confessed sins. In such a case,
you are nevertheless held guilty, since you are not yet
absolved from the guilt, even though you have renounced
it, until you begin to depose that which you may thus
far embrace; knowing full well that penance of heart
is of no value without confession of the mouth; and that
confession, however, without penance is always unfruit­
ful.80
Contrition, confession, and absolution, however, precede satis­
faction.87 Yet, in contrition there must be repentance for all
mortal sins, by which pardon is gained ; confession must be made
of all mortal sins, by which absolution for all is obtained. Those
facts would seem to indicate a clear view in Robert’s thought
of the prerequisite of the state of grace for the performance of
■ satisfaction.
Ibid., cap. 59 (PL 186, 908 C).
84 Liber VII, cap. 1 (PL 186, 912 D);
85Liber V, cap. 30 (PL 186, 852 C) ; cap. 31: "qui autem vel in une
impoenitens perseverat, ab irato munera Deo, reconciliatis potius danda, non
impetrat” (PL 186, 852 D).
86 Liber VI, cap. 51 : ". . . nihilominus tamen reus teneris, quoniam a
culpa, licet eam dimiseris, nondum es absolutus, donec si quam adhuc
amplecteris, et illam deponere coeperis. Plane sciens poenitentiam cordis
absque confessione oris nunquam valere ; confessionem autem absque
poenitentia semper infructuosam esse” (PL 186, 900 C).
87 Ibid. (PL 186, 901 A); cf. Liber VIL cap. 1 (PL 186 911 D).

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

61

Robert Pullen further teaches that fear of punishment is not
enough for pafdon through penance, but that love of God must
predominate. If that were not enough to point to the need of
charity for the performance of satisfaction, the conclusion he
draws from St. Paul (I Cor. 13:3) will be more convincing:
“whence he wished to have made known to us that everything
is unpleasing to God, which however much it may be seen to
glitter, is tasteless because it is not seasoned with charity.” 88
Whatever is done outside charity cannot be of any advantage.
His thought is applied aptly to the lamentations of penance
in the following explanation. To love iniquity is to hate one’s
soul; for to love iniquity is to be an evil tree. But an evil tree
cannot produce good fruit. Therefore, “ he who loves even one
injustice, in the meanwhile performs no good deed.” 8990
*
Finally, Robert teaches expressly that impenitence of heart does
not allow satisfaction for any sin to be made as long as that
impenitence remains. Instructing the priest in the manner of
dealing with impenitent souls, Robert cautions against any de­
ception. One who is impenitent should be told that nothing but
eternal damnation awaits him. And yet,
if he should happen to repent of that sin in the meantime,
you should not deny pardon to one prepared to make
satisfaction : not however in a reverse order, but then
only when the impenitence for that sin shall have disap­
peared from the heart, which while it remained, did not
allow satisfaction for any sin to thrive.80

Therefore, before satisfaction may be enjoined or performed, the
sinner must repent in his heart and manifest that repentance to
88Liber V, cap. 31: “Unde nobis innotuisse voluit omne illud fore Deo
ingratum, quod quantumlibet fulgere visatur, ideo sordet quoniam cliaritate
non conditur” (PL 186, 853 C; cf. 853 A).
89 Ibid. :
. qui vel unam iniquitatem diligit, nullum interim bonum
facit.”
90 Liber VI, cap. 57 ; “ Et si quo interim de peccato poenitere contingat,
satisfaciendi veniam non deneges : non tamen praepostere, verum tunc
quando illius peccati impoenitentia a corde recesserit ; quod dum remanebat,
nullius satisfactionem peccati vigere sinebat” (PL 186, 907 B).

N

62 Sacramental Penance in the Tzvelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
the priest through confession. That would seem to give definite
proof of the need of the state of grace and charity.
There are likewise conditions to be fulfilled in the satisfactory
work itself. It must proceed under the influence of grace, it must
be freely performed, it must be a good act, it must contain a
penal aspect.
First of all, Robert Pullen teaches that “ the first and special
cause of all good deeds is grace, which indeed precedes good
works begun that they may exist, and follows them that they may
remain.” 91 Salutary confession and therefore its source, interior
penance of the heart, are gifts of God and do not depend on the
mere whim of the sinner.92 Therefore the confessor dealing
with an impenitent sinner should counsel him to implore the gift
of repentance from God through works of mercy and divine
worship.93
In the second place, while grace is the first and special cause
of all good deeds, there must be the cooperation of free will.
Indeed our free will has a definite, though secondary, authority
over all our good deeds. It is within the power of frêe will,
preceded by grace, to perform good works, and followed by grace
to continue doing good. There is some merit in this cooperation
of free will, because the will can also refuse to cooperate. Grace
invites a sinner, but it can only lead one obedient ; it draws one
who is willing, and does not force him who is unwilling.94
Finally, the satisfactory work must be good and at the same
time penal. Both these conditions are implied when Robert states
that “ truly since we offend God by the pleasure of sin, it is
necessary that we please Him by some satisfaction painful to
us.” 93 That the satisfactory work must be good follows from
the fact that man must offer it to God in order to please Hirn.*
95
91 Ibid., cap. 50: “Unde patet quod omnium bene gestorum prima
praecipuaque causa gratia est; quippe quae bona coepta praevenit ut sub
sistant, subsequitur ut maneant" (PL 186, 895 A).
Ibid., cap. 51 (PL 186, 896 D-897 A).
rj3 Ibid., cap. 57 (PL 186, 907 B).
™Ibid., cap. 50 (PL 186, 895 A).
95 Ibid., cap. 52 : “ Nimirum quoniam dulcedine peccati Deum offendimus
necesse est ut aliqua satisfactione nobis anxia ipsum placemus ” (PL 186
902 A).

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

63

A work which is painful to the performer is one containing a
penal aspect. Besides, the very thought involved in satisfaction
is the temporal punishment of sin. Expressly, Pullen states that
discipline, at least, must contain a penal element. “ Finally what­
ever is undertaken for discipline is deservedly disapproved if it
admits nothing of bitterness.” 90
sacramental satisfaction

It may be noted here that Robert Pullen seems to treat ex­
clusively of sacramental satisfaction. At least he makes no dis­
tinction between sacramental and extra-sacramental satisfaction.
Yet he seems to suggest charity and works of mercy as extra
means of removing the temporal punishment due to sin. He
does not exclude them from the realm of sacramental satisfac­
tion; he does seem to urge them at all times as means of satis­
faction and merit.*9-7
Sacramental satisfaction is necessary. Robert Pullen, even
though he admits that sins are forgiven through compunction of
heart, nevertheless maintains that both confession and the fruits
of penance are required, “ because according to the statutes of
the Church, whoever can attain those two and contemns [them],
loses salvation.” 88
Ordinarily satisfaction follows compunction of heart, hope of
pardon, and confession.99 Satisfaction is to be assigned by the
confessor and performed by the penitent, ordinarily after absolu­
tion.
One of the reasons for confession is that the penitent may
learn from it just what must be done to atone for his sins.100
“ Therefore following authority we should open the uncleanness
of a more grievous sin to the priest, and should take care to
purge it for as much time as he commands.” 101
90 Liber VII, cap. 3: " Postremo quidquid pro disciplina suscipitur, si
nihil admittit acredinis, merito reprobatur” (PL 186, 915 C).
9? Liber VI, cap. 52 (PL 186, 903 B).
9»Ibid., cap. 59 (PL 186, 908 C).
μ Ibid., cap. 51 (PL 186, 901 A).
Ibid., cap. 59 (PL 186, 908 C).
i01/bid., cap. 51: “Auctoritatem ergo sequentes gravioris leprae im-

64 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

In his turn, the priest should provide present punishment for
those placed in his charge in order that they may avoid future
punishment.*
102
First asking God’s help, the priest should consider these circum­
stances : “ who, what, where, by what means, why, how, when,”
for according to the quality of these circumstances, the quality
of the deed is known; and from the deed the lesser or greater
guilt.103
Only after he knows the case should the priest assign satisfac­
tion according to the guilt.
Having taken cognizance of the case, since no sin
remains unpunished (for God is not merciful to all those
who perform iniquity, taking vengeance on all their
inventions [Ps. 98:8]), the priest should estimate the
worthy (condignam) punishment he will impose on the
guilty party according to : Bring forth fruits befitting
repentance (Luke 3.-8).104

Satisfaction according to the guilt does not mean weighing only
the quantity and quality of the sins, but also what the condition
of the penitent can support. The priest is advised to consider
what the strength of each penitent is able to bear, what it would
refuse to bear ; “ let him make plain what is due to the fault in
justice (jure), in order that the sinner may be humbled; let him,
however, impose what can be sustained.” 105
The general rule, however, is that satisfaction be proportioned
to the quantity and quality of the sin. Indeed, the confessor
should not favor the penitent by unduly mitigating the assign­
ment of satisfaction. The fact is
munditiam sacerdoti pandamus, et quanto jusserit tempore purgare curemus ”
(PL 186, 897 C).
102 Ibid., cap. 52 (PL 186, 902 B).
103 Ibid. (PL 186, 901 C-D).
104 Ibid.: “Cognita causa quoniam nullum peccatum impunitum (Deus
enim non miseretur omnibus qui operantur iniquitatem, ulciscens in omnes
adinventiones eorum [Ps. 98:8]), sacerdos poenam condignam reo im­
positurus excogitet, juxta illud: Facite dignos fractus poenitentiae (Luc 3·
3). . . .” (PL 186, 901 D).
305 Ibid. (PL 186, 901 D-902 A).

ifffîiifci·

:-~Λ

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

65

if the priest does not punish as is necessary, God adds
punishment over and above, either in the future in pur­
gatorial fires, or in this life in various ways, at one time
affecting the penitent with confusion, at another time
afflicting him with a cross, sometimes by taking away
those things which he held dear.100

Because the flame of punishment for sin is suffered either in the
present by satisfaction.or in the future by the more painful flames
of purgatory,107 the priest should assign penance proportioned to
the guilt.
Since true penance necessarii}7 includes the amendment of life,
it is likewise fitting that the priest should assign satisfaction
according to the kind of sin ; hence the vice should be overcome
by the practice of the opposite virtue as penance.

I
i
1
I
f

For it is necessary that we wipe away by the bitterness
of punishment that which we have committed in pleasure,
and nothing seems more fitting than that we apply
remedies contrary to the evils.108
J'
! ■
'
f

>

,

Only after these two considerations does the condition of the
penitent enter. The penance should be assigned according to the
quantity and quality of the crime.
However, if the frailty
is able to bear neither
satisfaction, some such
his strength does not
guilty person.108

of the sinner is so great that he
the quality nor the quantity of
punishment is to be sought which
refuse, and which torments the

The problem is not insoluble because there is some satisfaction
J*

.100Ibid.: “Si non, ut oportet, sacerdos punit, poenam Deus superaddit,
aut in futuro ignibus purgatoriis, aut in hoc saeculo variis modis poenitentem nunc confusione afficiens, nunc cruciatu caedens, nonnunquam quae
chara habebat tollens” (PL 186, 902 D).
™ Ibid. (PL 186, 902 A).
108 Liber VII, cap. 3: “Necesse est enim ut quod voluptate deliquimus,
castigationis amaritudine detergamus, nihilque convenientius videtur, quam
ut contrariis contraria opponamus remedia ” (PL 186, 914 C).
109 Ibid.: “Si tamen tanta est fragilitas praevaricatoris, ut nec qualitatem
nec quantitatem ferre queat satisfactionis, aliquid tale inquirendum est, quod
nec vires recusent, et reum excruciet” (PL 186, 914 D).

66 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

ψ

which the nature of each penitent can bear.110 The priest’s
primary interest in satisfaction is that the penitent avoid the more
excruciating pains of purgatory; yet he is more fundamentally
interested in the saving of souls even through punishment. There­
fore “ the doctor should provide for the patient that kind of
cure which can be a remedy, not an increase of the sickness.”111
It follows from the above that no satisfaction is to be imposed
upon those who are seriously ill or upon the dying. The priest’s
concern in such cases is to endeavor to arouse true sorrow and
hope of pardon in the penitent, for by these he will be saved.
The lack of a full measure of satisfaction will not cause his soul
to be lost, provided he has not despised the performance of satis­
faction. In case of his recovery, however, the priest should then
impose penance.112
On the part of the penitent, Robert also demands prudence.
Here appears the reason for his insistence on the consideration
of the penitent’s strength in the assignment of satisfaction—the
fact that too great a burden of penance may discourage the sinner
from performing any satisfaction at all.

Let each one, however, avoid taking upon himself an
unsupportable burden, lest necessity force him to fall
under the load not rightly imposed by the priest. For
while those who impose oppressive burdens on men’s
shoulders are refuted by the Lord (Matt. 23:4) ; the
ones who take up those burdens are insinuated as de­
serving little praise; for what is unsupportable must
everywhere be refused.113
But having made this consideration, the penitent should under­
take what his strength can and should bear, and perform it dili­
gently.11*
""Ibid.
m Liber VI, cap. 52 (PL 186, 902 A).
i’® ibid·., cap. 58 (PL 186, 908 A-B).
i’3 Ibid,, cap. 51 : “ Quisquis tamen caveat onus importabile sibi assumere,
ne necessitas cogat sub fasce a presbytero non recte imposita succumbere.
Dum enim qui onera importabilia in humeros hominum imponunt, a Domino
redarguuntur (Matt. 23:4) ; hi qui imposita suscipiunt, minime laudandi in­
sinuantur: quod enim importabile est, usquequaque recusari debet” (PL
186, 901 B).
ii“ Ibid.

! Ψ

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

67

Probably for the first time there appears the definite statement
that the penitent is to perform this assigned satisfaction after he
receives absolution. First of all Robert states that “ he who is
held subject to punishment because he has not yet completed the
fruits of penance, having performed those things so that he is
already worthy of rest, is absolved.” 115 If that statement admits
of equivocation, Robert’s further explanation does not. The
weakness which increases the difficulty of doing good after sin
might well prevent the penitent from performing his satisfaction.
But he receives strength through sacramental absolution.
Indeed whoever through confession directs himself to
the fruits of penance (which he is now able to do
strengthened by that absolution which takes place in
confession) is bound by punishment until their com­
pletion.316

One final statement confirms the truth. “ After confession and
absolution, there is need (for the sake of satisfaction and even
of religion) of discipline, prayer, and almsgiving.” 117
Peter Lombard (ca. 1100-1160)
1 Any study of the development of theological thought must in­
evitably turn to the “ Master of the Sentences,” author of the
greatest theological text-book of the Middle Ages, professor of
theology at Paris, and later Bishop of Paris.
He was born in Lumello near Novara, then in Lombardy, some
time around the turn of the twelfth century. Very little is known
with certainty about his early life in Italy. His parents were
both poor and obscure, but good fortune provided him with a
patron in the Bishop of Lucca. Peter Lombard arrived at Rheims
115 Ibid., cap. 60; “Qui vero fructibus poenitentiae nondum expletis
poenae obnoxius tenetur, is ea peracta, ut iam dignus sit requie, absolvitur ”
(PL 186, 909 A).
116 Ibid.: “Quisquis vero per confessionem poenitentiae fructibus intendit
(quod jam potest ea quae in confessione fit absolutione roboratus) is usque
ad peractos, obligatur poenae” (PL 186, 909 D).
117 Liber VII, cap, 1 ; “ Post confessionem et absolutionem, opus est
(causa satisfactionis, imo et religionis) disciplina, oratione, eleemosyna”
(PL 186, 911 D).

68 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
sometime between 1136-1139, probably closer to the earlier date.
Here he was aided by St. Bernard at the request of the Bishop
of Lucca. After a short stay at Rheims, he proceeded to the
school at the Abbey of Saint-Victor in Paris, armed with a letter
of recommendation from St. Bernard. PTis works give evidence
of intimate contact with the ideas of both the Victorine and Abelardian schools.
He probably occupied the Chair of Theology at the school of
Notre Dame. Pie also took a prominent part in the judgment
of Gilbert de la Porrée at the Council of Rheims in 1148, at
which Pope Eugene HI presided. Chosen Bishop of Paris, he
was consecrated in 1159 and died just about a year later on July
21 or 22, 1160.
Peter Lombard’s Quattuor Libri Sentcntiarium (ca. 1148) filled
a crying need of the time, the demand for a compendium of
theological doctrine. He was the first to achieve a collection of
the traditional teaching on Catholic Doctrine. Therefore his work
became and continued to be a kind of terminus a quo for future
treatments of theological thought. In the special field of the
sacraments, his work is just as remarkable. While the seven
sacraments had been named in some writings of the early twelfth
century, and the notion of a sacrament was quite clear in the
Summa Sententiarum, “. . . Peter emphasized so strongly the
distinction between the sacraments properly so called, efficacious
signs of grace, and the other rites which are mere signs, that the
word sacrament came to be used exclusively to designate our seven
sacramental rites.”118 He therefore consecrated the septenary
number, and caused the definitive acceptance of the method of
separating systematically the treatment of the sacraments from
the other parts of theology.11»
NATURE OF SATISFACTION

That Penance had not been previously treated as a sacrament
in the scientific manner seems to be evident from the Master’s
work. And in the more restricted field of satisfaction, there is
ne p Pourrat, Theology of the Sacraments (trans, from 3rd French
edition ; St. Lotus Herder, 1910), p 272.
11» Ibid., p. 273.

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

69

not yet the clear-cut distinction between sacramental1 and extra. sacramental satisfaction.
Peter Lombard at times seems to imply or signify satisfaction
when he actually uses the more general term of penance. At
other times, however, he specifically names satisfaction as a part
of the sacrament of Penance. For example : “ In the perfec­
tion of Penance, however, three steps are to be observed, namely,
compunction of heart, confession of the mouth, satisfaction in
deed.”120
His definition of satisfaction is that given by Gennadius,121
though attributed by the Master and those who followed him to
Saint Augustine. “ For the satisfaction of penance, as Augus­
tine says, is to root out the causes of sin, and not to allow en­
trance to their suggestions.” 122123
Although Peter Lombard assumed this definition of Gennadius
which directs satisfaction primarily to the future and indicates
pre-eminently the medicinal and preservative aspect of satisfac­
tion,223 he is nevertheless cognizant also of its vindictive charac­
ter. In several places he states that satisfaction or, in its absence,
the depth of contrition remove the pains of purgatory otherwise
awaiting man after death only when they “ suffice for the punish­
ment of the crime.” 124
SATISFACTORY WORKS

The works by which this punishment is achieved are classed as
prayer, fasting, and almsgiving.125 It should be noted that Peter
Lombard also mentions the shame involved, in confession as part
of the punishment of sin:
120 Liber IV Sententiarum,. Dist. XVI, cap. 1, n. 159, p. 839.
121 De Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus, 54 (PL 58, 994 C).
m Liber IV, Dist. XV, cap. 3, n. 148, p. 832: “Est enim satisfactio
poenitentiae, ut ait Augustinus, peccatorum causas excidere, nec sugges­
tionibus earum aditum indulgere.”
123 C£. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, Supplementum, q. 12, a. 3, c.,
ad 3um., ad 4um ; In Librum IVum Sent., Dist. XV, q. 1, a. 1, sol. 3.
™ Liber IV, Dist. XX, cap. 1, n. 203, p. 874; cf. ibid., cap. 2, η. 204.
p. 875; cap. 3, η. 206, ρ. 876; Dist. XVII, cap. 5, η. 177, p. 857.
125 Dist. XVI, cap. 6, ηπ. 163-164, ρ. 844.

70 Sacramental Penance τη the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
. . . the confession of sin involves shame, and the shame
itself is a grave punishment; and therefore we are com­
manded to confess our sins, in order that we may suffer
shame for a punishment, for this itself is a part of the
divine judgment.126
EFFECT OF SATISFACTION

The effect of satisfaction is the remission of the temporal
punishment due to already forgiven sin. Peter taught that while
God in His mercy forgives mortal sin and the debt of eternal
punishment, in justice He does not allow sin to go unpunished.
After this present life God provides punishment in the fire of
purgatory. Man is given the opportunity and obligation to escape
those fires by performing satisfaction in this present life.
NECESSITY OF SATISFACTION

For thé necessity of satisfaction, Lombard advances the com­
mand of St. John the Baptist recorded in the Gospel.127 He states
that “satisfaction is commanded by John, where he says, ‘bring
forth fruits befitting repentance. . . .’ ” 128 Therefore fruits of
penance which must suffice for the punishment of his sin must be
performed by man.
The punishment to be remitted through satisfaction is the
temporal punishment due to sin even after its remission. That
fact is clearly revealed from a study of Peter Lombard’s doctrine
on the forgiveness of sins.
God forgives man for mortal sin as soon as he proposes, moved
by contrition and humility of heart,'to confess his sin. In treat­
ing the question, Peter Lombard points out that there are two
opinions on the forgiveness of sin. One group holds that no
one can be cleansed from mortal sin without confession and satis­
faction if there is time for them. The other group maintains that
God forgives sin as soon as there is contrition of heart with
120 Dist. XVII, cap. 5, n. 177, p. 857 :
. confessio peccati pudorem
habet, et ipsa erubescentia est gravis poena: ideoque iubemur confiteri pec­
cata, ut erubescentiam patiamur pro poena : nam hoc ipsum pars est divini
iudicii.”
™ Luke 3 ;8 ; Matt. 3 :8.
128 Dist. XVI, cap. 2, n. 160, p. 840.

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

71

the resolve to go to confession, even though confession and satisfaction have not yet taken place.129 After presenting the variou
authorities introduced in defense of the two positions, he con­
cludes,

certainly without confession of mouth and performance
of exterior punishment, sins are effaced through contri­
tion and humility of heart. For from the moment one
proposes to confess, being pricked in conscience, God
forgives; because in that case there is confession of
heart, although not of the mouth, through which the soul
is cleansed within from the stain and contagion of the
sin committed, and the debt of eternal death is relaxed.130

t

This forgiveness, granted to the sinner possessing contrition and
the resolution to confess, remits both the sin and the eternal
punishment due to it. Moreover, that forgiveness is simultaneous,
for just as God “ illumines the soul within by His grace, in like
manner and at the same time He relaxes the debt of eternal
death.” 131
It is conformable to right reason that the forgiveness of mortal
sin should include the remission of the debt of eternal punish­
ment. For no one is truly grieved over his sin, having a contrite
and humble heart, unless in charity; however, he who is in
charity is worthy of life; since no one can be at the same time
worthy of life and death, he is therefore no longer bound by
the debt of eternal death ; he ceased to be a son of wrath at the
moment when he began to love and to repent.132
In granting such forgiveness Almighty God shows forth His
mercy. His justice, however, does not permit that the sin go
unpunished. Man must punish his sin or God will do so.
V2i> Dist. XVII, cap. 1, n. 165, p. 845.
130 Ibid., n. 167, p. 848 : “ Sane, quod sine confessione oris et solutione
poenae exterioris, peccata delentur per contritionem et humilitatem cordis.
Ex quo enim proponit mente compuncta, se confessurum, Deus dimittit;
quia ibi est confessio cordis, etsi non oris, per quam anima interius mun­
datur a macula et contagio peccati commisi, et debitum aeternae mortis
relaxatur.”
133 Dist. XVIII, cap. 4, n. 182, p. 859 : . . et ideo, sicut interius gratia
sua animam illuminat, ita et simul debitum aeternae mortis relaxat.
M2 Ibid., n. 184, p. 860.

:

s

72 Sacramental Penance in the Tzvclfth and Thirteenth Centuries

For God, since He is both merciful and just, forgives
the penitent out of mercy, not retaining the sin unto
eternal punishment; but indeed out of justice Fie does
not discharge the sin unpunished- For either man
punishes it, or God does so; man, however, punishes it
by doing penance.133

It may occasionally happen that the depth of contrition will be
so vehement that it will render e?<terior satisfaction unnecessary.

But that interior sorrow sometimes suffices for the
punishment of sin, we have certain proof in that thief
who by contrition of mind only and by confession, as
soon as he was converted, merited entrance to paradise.134 ·

Ordinarily contrition will not completely suffice for the punish­
ment of the crime; hence it follows that if man does not perform
the punishment by voluntary satisfaction, God will supply punish­
ment elsewhere. Peter Lombard, considering the case of a sinner
who is converted at the end of his life, admits that a late but
sincere penitent will be saved, but only through purgatorial punish­
ment.
But even if one thus converted lives and does not die,
we do not promise that he escapes all punishment: for
before that he must be purged in the fire of purgation
who put off to another world the fruit of conversion.135

The fire of purgatory, while not an eternal punishment, is never­
theless very grave and far more painful than every punishment
ever suffered by anyone in the present life. This is true even

H;

■

133 Dist. XX, cap. 2, n. 204, p. 875 : “ Deus enim, cum sit misericors et
iustus, ex misericordia poenitenti ignoscit, non reservans peccatum ad
poenam aeternam; ex justitia vero impunitum non dimittit delictum. Aut
enim homo punit, aut Deus: homo autem punit poenitendo.”
134 Ibid., cap, 3, η. *206, p. 876: “Quod autem, interdum sufficiat dolor in­
terior ad vindictam peccati, certum documentum habemus in illo latrone, qui
sola mentis contritione et confessione, statim ut conversus fuit, paradisum
ingredi meruit.”
135 Ibid., cap. 1, η. 202, p. 874: “Sed si etiam sic conversus vita vivat et
non moriatur, non promittimus, quod evadat omnem poenam; nam prius
purgandus est igne purgationis, qui in aliud saeculum distulit fructum con­
versionis.”

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

73

though the wondrous torments of the martyrs or the worthless
punishments of others be considered ; the punishment of purgatory
has not been approached by any suffering in the flesh.136 It is
therefore of great importance to escape that punishment. Toward
that end, “ just as interior penance is prescribed for us, so also
are confession of mouth and exterior satisfaction, if there is
opportunity.” 137
The necessity of satisfaction for the remission of the temporal
punishment due to sin is likewise stressed by Peter Lombard in
the distinction he draws between baptismal and extra-baptismal
justification. The question he proposes concerns the value of
Baptism to one who approaches Baptism with faith and charity
and already sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

To this it can be rightly said that they are indeed jus­
tified through faith and contrition, that is, purged from
the stain of sin and absolved from the debt of eternal
punishment, but are thus far held by temporal satisfac­
tion, by which penitents are bound in the Church. When,
however, they receive Baptism, they are both cleansed
from their sins, if they have committed any in the in­
terim after conversion, and are absolved from exterior
satisfaction. . . .138
POSSIBILITY OF SATISFACTION

Peter Lombard does not offer an explicit treatment of the
possibility of man's performance of satisfaction. He may be
said, however, to assume or insinuate that possibility. First of
all he states that punishment awaits man in purgatory only be­
cause he has postponed the fruits of conversion which he could
have performed on earth.139 There are others who go to purga13β JIM
137Dist. XVII, cap. 1, n. 167, p. 848.
138 Dist. IV, cap. 5-6, n. 48, pp. 769-770 : “ Ad quod sane dici potest, eos
quidem per fidem et contritionem justificatos, id est a macula peccati pur­
gatos et a debito aeternae poenae absolutos, tamen adhuc teneri satisfactione
temporali, qua poenitentes ligantur in Ecclesia. Cum autem baptismum
percipiunt, et a peccatis, si qua interim post conversionem contraxerunt,
mundantur et ab exteriori satisfactione absolvuntur. . . .”
139 Dist. XX, cap. 1, n. 202, p. 874.

b

74 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
tory only because they have failed to complete their penance in
this world. He therefore urges them so to correct their sins in
this life, that after death they will not need to endure punish­
ment.740 Following St. Jerome, Peter likewise states that light
or trivial sins are atoned for by light punishment on earth;
grievous sins, however, are punished heavily on earth and, if
penance has not been done during the earthly chastisement, they
are likewise punished eternally in the next life.141
CONDITIONS

Peter does give in some detail the conditions applicable to the
performance of satisfaction.
1. The first condition of satisfaction is that it must be per­
formed during earthly life. “ It is also to be known that the
time of penance is until the last moment of life.”142 Moreover,
it follows from that statement that temporal life is the exclusive
time of penance. It is possible to have true repentance even in
the last moment of life, but it is very difficult. Indeed the sinner
who postpones penance and satisfaction to the end of life takes
a serious chance of condemning himself in eternity.143 That
would not be true if the time of penance and satisfaction went
beyond this life. Besides, the penitent who fails to purge himself
of the temporal punishment due to sin in this life by perform­
ing the fruits of conversion will be purged in the fire of purga­
tory in the next world.144 Man punishes himself by satisfaction
in this life; otherwise God punishes man in purgatory in the
future life.145
2. The second condition is that man must be in the state of
grace and in possession of charity in order to perform satisfac­
tion. The general principle which implies all that must follow
is borrowed from St. Augustine:
140 Ibid., cap. 2, n. 204, p. 875.
541 Dist. XV, cap. 3, n. 145, p. 830.
142 Dist. XX, cap. 1, n. 201, p. 872: “Sciendum est etiam, quod tempus
poenitentiae est usque in extremum articulum vitae.”
442 ibid.; ci. nn. 202-203, pp. 873-874.
444 Ibid., n. 202, p. 874.
445 Ibid., cap. 2, n. 204, p. 875,

'

The Doctrine of the Tzvelfth Century

75

These things are said for the sake of charity, without
which there cannot be any true penance in us, since in
the good there is the charity of God which endures all
things.146

True penance demands charity; satisfaction, however, demands
true penance. Treating of the injunction of satisfaction by priests,
Lombard states :
And it must be noted that those whom they bind by
the satisfaction of penance, they show by that very fact
to be loosed from sins, because penitential satisfaction
is not imposed on anyone unless the priest judges him
truly penitent; he does not impose it on another, and
by that fact indicates that the sin is retained by God.147
Peter Lombard spends the entire Fifteenth Distinction with the
single aim of proving in greater detail the necessity of repentance
and satisfaction for all mortal sins at the same time ; hence he
demands the state of grace for true repentance and satisfaction.
At times Peter seems to be speaking only of interior penance
or complete conversion of heart. Yet it seems also that his posi­
tion maintains that no man can offer anything which is pleasing
to God and effective in remitting punishment unless that man
himself is pleasing to God. The only soul pleasing to God is
one possessing sanctifying grace and charity. That Peter speaks
principally of satisfaction here is the opinion of St. Bonaventure
in his analysis of the Fifteenth Distinction. “ Here he disproves
the error which concerns the partition of penance ; and this most
of all with reference to satisfaction.” 148
The error here rejected by Peter Lombard held that a penitent,
146 Dist, XV, cap. 7, n. 155, pp. 835-836: “ Haec propter caritatem dicta
sunt, sine qua in nobis non potest esse vera poenitentia, quoniam in bonis
caritas Dei est, quae tolerat omnia.”
347 Dist. XVIII, cap. 6, n. 187, p. 863 : “ Et notandum, quia quos satisfac­
tione poenitentiae ligant, eo ipso a peccatis solutos ostendunt, quia non
imponitur alicui satisfactio poenitentialis, nisi quem sacerdos vere poenitentem arbitratur ; alii non imponit et eo ipso peccatum retineri a Deo indicat.”
148 In IVum Librum Sententiarum, Dist. XV, pars I, p. 349 : “ Hic reprobat
errorem, qui consistit quantum ad poenitentiae divisionem ; et hoc maxime
ratione satisfactionis.”

76 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
guilty of several mortal sins, could truly repent of one of them
and actually obtain pardon for that one from God without any
repentance for the other sins. The basis for that opinion was
the statement of the Prophet : “ there shall not arise a double
affliction.” 149 According to this position, if a person shall have
confessed one of several sins to the priest and shall have fulfilled
the satisfaction enjoined by the priest, even though he remained
silent concerning his other sins, he is not to be judged again for
the sin confessed and for which he has already made satisfac­
tion according to the judgment of the priest. If he were to be
judged a second time, a double affliction would arise.150
Peter rules out such a position, insisting that the words of the
Prophet apply only to those who, by' their punishments, are
changed for the better and who persevere in the way of good­
ness. This required change for the better obviously could not
be realized in one who, though making satisfaction for one sin,
remains in other sins. On the contrary, one who insists on re­
maining in sin while punishment is visited upon him becomes
increasingly worse; for him temporal pain is the beginning of
eternal punishment.151
Temporal affliction, therefore, does not mean the end of punish­
ment, unless it is accompanied by amendment, by true penance.
There are five reasons for which the trials of life may be in­
flicted, not just one reason.

t

For chastisement befalls us in five ways: either that the
merits of the just may be increased by patience, like
Job; or for the preservation of virtues, lest pride should
tempt us, like Paul ; or for the correcting of sins, like
Mary’s leprosy, or for the glory of God, like the man
born blind; or for the beginning of punishment, like
Herod, that here may be seen what happens in hell, ac­
cording to this saying: “ Consume them with double con­
trition, oh Lord.” 152

Γ ;

4

,! ■,

,

Nah. 1:9.
iso Liber IV, Dist. XV, cap. 1, n. 141, p. 828.
lai Ibid., n. 142.
Ibid., cap. 2, n. 143, p. 829: “Quinque enim modis flagella contingunt :
v/d itf- justis mprifcï npr nafipntînrn mimant,..·
y .i. .
t ,
. ..

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

77

Therefore the statement from Nahum cannot mean that any sins
which are punished temporally will not be further punished by
God. Some are corrected by temporal punishment ; others are
punished here and forever.
By giving the proper explanation of several texts from the
Fathers, and by substantiating his own view with other texts
from like authorities, Lombard proves that not only are all the
pains of life without satisfactory value unless true repentance
precedes them, but that also even the constant and most lavish
almsgiving is in vain unless correction of life be the foundation.
In fact, the beginning of true almsgiving is the showing of mercy
to one’s own soul through correction of life.*153
He concludes :
From the foregoing it is given to be understood, that
those remaining in mortal sin, although they may give
bountiful alms, nevertheless do not make satisfaction
through them because they act inordinately, since they
do not begin from themselves. Nor is such a deed
properly called almsgiving, as long as they appear cruel
to themselves, not pleasing God. Therefore, that is not
to be termed satisfaction for sin, which a person per­
forms for one sin, while he remains in another; because
“ it is of no advantage to fast and pray and perform
other good works, unless the mind be recalled from sin
and if at some time converted, such a one shall have
confessed the unmentioned sin to the priest, satisfaction
should be imposed on him for both [sins], because he
has not made condign satisfaction for the first?54
Evidently some of the Master’s predecessors or contemporaries
held the opinion that such satisfaction, performed by a penitent
remaining in mortal sin, was actually true satisfaction, but un­
fruitful so long as the person remained in that other sin. Yet
he would receive the fruit of that satisfaction as soon as he
repented of that other sin. For then both sins would be forlepra ; vel ad gloriam Dei, ut de caeco nato ; vel ad initium poenae, ut Herodi,
quatenus hic videatur, quid in inferno sequatur, secundum illud : ' Duplici
contritione contere eos.' "
153 Ibid., cap. 3-5, nn. 144—151, pp. 829-833.
Ibid., cap. 6, η. 152, pp. 833-834.

78 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
given, and the preceding satisfaction, which was dead, would be
vivified.155
This opinion, drawn from texts of St. Augustine and St.
Jerome, concludes that God will always reward and be delighted
with the good He “ has planted in the one sinning,” and will
cause the good deeds planted in good ground to be harvested
and gathered into the barn.156
Peter Lombard, however, opposes the view by giving the proper
interpretation of the authorities. The only good deeds which
find reward at the throne of God are those performed in charity.157
Hence the texts of Augustine and Jerome refer to one who at
one time in charity performs many good deeds and is good, and
who at another time commits many sins and is evil ; the person
referred to is not one who, at the same time, both committed
sins and performed many good works, but one who at different
times performed both kinds of deeds. Hence when the evils in
such a man have been destroyed, the good deeds he had per­
formed in charity before his sins and which had been rendered
lifeless by his sins, are both vivified and rewarded, once he has
done penance for his sins.158
The Master concludes:

And in like manner God loves that good, which He has
planted in the sinner, in him that is, who after that good
deed has sinned, not who has appeared sinning and
doing good at the same time; because God would not
love the work of such a man unto reward.159
But supposing that there were such good works in one who
performed them while in the state of sin, Peter will admit only
some effect toward a more. tolerable acceptance of punishment
in the judgment. For “ those works are said to be rewarded by
153 Ibid., n. 153, p. 834.
159 Ibid.
157 Dist. XIV, cap. 1- 2, n. 136, p. 822.
138 Dist. XV, cap. 6, n. 154, p. 834.
159Ibid., p. 835: “Similiter et illud bonum amat Deus, quod plantavit in
peccante, in illo scilicet, qui post illud bonum peccavit, non simul peccans et
bene operans exstitit ; quia talis hominis opus non diligeret Deus ad re-

|
·

>
I
ξ

j

f
.

ij

The Doctrine of the Tzoelfth Century

79

God and not given over to oblivion, not because they help in
obtaining eternal life, but toAvard receiving a more tolerable
punishment in the last judgment.” 160
Even good acts which were performed in charity lose their
value through a subsequent unrepented mortal sin. With how
much more reason must it be said that good acts performed in the
state of mortal sin are of no avail toward eternal life.501.
Further, the very notion of a person being able to offer satis­
faction to God, and at the same time remaining in mortal sin,
involves a contradiction. For it would involve in the penitent at
one time, the state of friendship and of enmity with God. God
will heal from sin only those whom He heals entirely.102
From the foregoing, Lombard concludes his point to be proven
and a better knowledge given of true penance and satisfaction.
His final statement provides further foundation for assuming that
he has spoken of satisfaction in these general statements on
penance.

1

'
L
/

5

i

From what has gone before there arises a clear notion
of true 'penance and satisfaction. For that is true
penance which destroys sin ; which that alone does which
amends the crime; that indeed amends the crime, which
produces hatred of the crime committed or [possibly]
to be committed with the desire of making satisfaction.163
Peter Lombard also seems to insinuate or imply certain condi­
tions on the part of the work offered as satisfaction. Indeed his
terminology is not what we have come to expect in later times,
but the facts are apparently in his teaching.
1. The penal character of a satisfactory work seems sufficiently
indicated when the Master of the Sentences makes the following
statement :
360 Ibid., cap. 7, n. 155, p. 835:
. quae dicuntur remunerari a Deo et
non dari oblivioni, non quia proficiant ad vitam aeternam obtinendam, sed ad
tolerabilius extremi indicii supplicium sentiendum ...”
101 Ibid., n. 156, p. 836.
Ibid., n. 157, pp. 836-837.
res Ibid., p. 838 : “ Ex praemissis perspicua fit notitia verae poenitentiae et
satisfactionis. Illa enim vera est poenitentia, quae peccatum abolet ; quod
ilia sola facit, quae scelus corrigit; illa vero scelus corrigit, quae odium
commissi criminis et committendi cum desiderio satisfaciendi affert.”

80 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
If it is therefore asked, why is confession necessary,
since the sin has already been remitted in contrition, we
say, because it is a certain punishment of sin, just as is
the satisfaction by deed.104

Likewise, when Peter Lombard answers different questions about
the possibility of various types of penitents suffering in purga­
tory, he states as a principle that those who do not fulfill or
complete their penance on earth must be purged in the fire of
purgatory. He excepts only those whose interior conversion is
sufficient for the punishment of their sins.105
2. The work must proceed from the freedom of the will, not
from necessity. Such seems to be Peter Lombard’s intention in
repeating the warning given to those who would postpone re­
pentance.
Let no one wait for the moment when he is not able to
sin. For let him seek the freedom of choice, not neces­
sity in order that he may be able to efface the sins
committed.166
3. True satisfaction must also be aided by God; hence it must
be supernatural, at least so far as the help of actual grace is
concerned. Again Peter Lombard does not use these specific
terms. But after concluding that confession and satisfaction are
commanded where there is opportunity for them, even though
sin and the debt of eternal death are forgiven to one truly sorry,
he states : “ And just as the remission of sin is the function of
God, in like manner there cannot be penance and confession,
through which sin is removed, except from God.”167 Then,
borrowing from St. Augustine, he adds that one who confesses
and does penance has the gift of the Holy Spirit, because there
cannot be confession of sin and punishment of sin in man of
himself.168 Dealing with the question of sinners who repent late
184 Dist. XVII, cap. 5, n. 177, p. 857.
185 Dist. XX, cap. 1-3, nn. 202-206, pp. 874-876.
Ibid., cap. 1, n. 202, p. 873.
1G‘ Dist. XVII, cap. 1, n. 167, p. 848: “Et sicut peccati 'remissio munus
Dei est, ita poenitentia et confessio, per quam peccatum deletur, non potest
esse nisi a Deo. ...”
we [bid.

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

81

in life, Peter again points to fruitful penance as the work of
God.

Late penance is accustomed to deceive many. But since
God is always mighty, He can always help even in death
those whom He will. Since therefore fruitful penance
is the work, not of man but of God, He can inspire it
whenever He wills by His mercy, and can reward out
of mercy those whom in justice He could condemn.169
4. A satisfactory work must be a good work. That is apparent
in the Fifteenth Distinction where Peter teaches man can offer
satisfaction only by pleasing God.
SACRAMENTAL SATISFACTION

Peter Lombard makes no explicit distinction between satisfac­
tion performed extra-sacramentally and satisfaction as a specific
part of the sacrament.
In the first part of his treatment on Penance, however, Peter
seems to point to a satisfaction which flows rather from the virtue
of penance alone than from the priestly injunction. Having estab­
lished that the virtue of penance or interior penance consists in
weeping over the evils committed and resolving at the same time
not to repeat their commission, he concludes :
Therefore he who thus recalls his mind from evils, so
that he bewails what was committed, and wills not to
commit what must be lamented, and does not neglect to
make satisfaction, does penance truly.170

It must be freely admitted, however, that Peter may intend to
imply the entire process of confession or exterior penance when
he speaks of the satisfaction which must not be neglected. In
lfi9 Dist. XX, cap. 1, n. 202, p. 874: “Multos solet serotina poenitentia
decipere. Sed quoniam Deus semper potens est, semper, etiam in morte,
iuvare valet quibus placet. Cum igitur opus sit non hominis sed Dei
fructifera poenitentia, inspirare eam potest, quandocumque vult sua miseri­
cordia, et remunerare ex misericordia, quos damnare potest ex iustitia.”
170 Dist. XIV, cap. 1-2, n. 135, p. 822 : “ Qui ergo a malis sic mentem
revocat, ut commissa plangat, et plangenda committere non velit, nec satis­
facere negligat, vere poenitet.”

Il

82 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
view of the fact that he teaches the necessity of confession and
satisfaction where possible, it may even be more probable that he
intends to imply both confession and satisfaction in this case.
There is no doubt about Peter’s doctrine concerning the need
of sacramental satisfaction. As has been seen, he makes satis­
faction one of the three parts or steps in the perfection of Penance.
In discussing satisfaction itself, Peter stresses the power and
obligation of the priest to assign penance to the penitent. Deal­
ing with the Power of the Keys as exercised by the priest him­
self, he states :

Priests also bind when they impose the satisfaction of
penance on penitents ; they loose when they remit some­
thing of it, or when they admit those purged through
it to the communion of the sacraments.171

The satisfaction of penance to which priests bind penitents in
exercising a work of justice is the bond of temporal punish­
ment.172 Finally, when Peter describes true or genuine satisfac­
tion, he advises the penitent to place himself entirely in the
judgment and power of the priest and to be prepared to do what­
ever the priest commands him for the sake of his soul.173
Sacramental satisfaction must be proportioned to the quality
and quantity of the crime. For when St. John the Baptist com­
manded the performance of satisfaction in the words: “ Bring
forth fruits befitting repentance,” he intended that the quality and
quantity of the penance be according to the quality and quantity
of the guilt. There cannot be equal ■ fruits of good work de­
manded both of him who sinned slightly and of him who sinned
, . more gravely.174
In order to assign a proportioned penance, the priest must know
the quantity and quality of the sins ; hence there is need in the
penitent for that discretion by which he will be able to confess
not merely the fact of commission of such and such a sin, but
also the attendant circumstances which may have affected it.
173 Dist. XVI IF cap. 6, n. 187, p. 863.
172 Ibid., cap. 1, n. 178, p. 857.
173 Dist. X\ZI, cap. 2, n. 160, p. 841.
174 Ibid., p. 840; cf. Dist. XX, cap. 4, n. 208, p. 877,

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

83

Thus a sin will be affected by circumstances of place, time, person
sinning, force of temptation, perseverance in sin. AU these are
to be confessed, not merely as a fulfillment of the obligation^of
confession, but, in addition, for the purpose of rendering possible
the assignment of a proportioned penance.175 “ Through confes­
sion ... the priest understands how he ought to judge concern­
ing the crime. . . .” 176
In further explanation of proportioned satisfaction, Peter adds
that there may be many worthy fruits of virtues which do not
suffice for penitents ; to fulfill true satisfaction, the penitent must
perform fruits befitting repentance. This, he states, refers to
satisfaction for greater crimes, because while the fruits of virtue
would be sufficient to satisfy for lesser or slight sins, they do
not suffice for more serious delinquencies. Yet even fruits of
virtue, although they may not be fruits worthy of penance,
should be sought by the penitent. The underlying principle is
not how much is offered, but with what state of mind, with how
much love does the penitent offer what he is able.177
Peter Lombard foresees the possibility of a priest, through
ignorance or negligence, assigning satisfaction which is not' con­
dign. In such a case, even though the penitent would fulfill the
penance assigned, he should be compared in some sense to those
who do penance only at the end of life or who fail to complete
their penance during life. The general principle is : if the peni­
tent’s contrition together with the penance assigned by the priest
is sufficient for the punishment of his sins, he is freed and will
pass from this life to the next without further punishment; but
if his sorrow plus the assigned satisfaction is not sufficient, God
will complete the punishment in purgatory.178
Peter held that interior penance or contrition is sometimes suf­
ficient for complete satisfaction. It follows that contrition, accord­
ing as it is greater or less, will have a greater or lesser value as
punishment of the sin. Peter bewails the fact, therefore, that
confessors are not able to weigh accurately the depth of con173 Ibid.
m, Dist. XVII, cap. 5, η. 177, p. 857.
U? Dist XVI, cap. 2, n. 160, pp. 841-842.
I7SDist. XX, cap. 3, n. 206, p. 876; cf, cap. 1-2, nn. 201-206, pp. 872-876.

84 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
trition which should affect the amount of penance they assign.
Tt is because they cannot weigh contrition that laws or norms of
penance are set down for all sinners.

But because the dispensers of the Church, to whom it is
not given to understand the secrets of hearts, do not
weigh the quantity of contrition, they determine laws of
penance for all those sorrowing, whether in a greater or
lesser degree, for their sin. Their zeal should aim espe­
cially toward this end, that they may perceive sorrow of
heart as far as it is permitted to them, and according to
its measure, that they may enjoin satisfaction.17'·1

Besides the depth of contrition, the state or condition of the
penitent should be considered by the priest in assigning penance.
This influence is suggested where Peter describes true satisfac­
tion and the discretion needed in the penitent for a complete con­
fession. Among some of the circumstances which must be
confessed and then considered are the excellence of the office or
position of the sinner, his age, wisdom, and rank.380 And as
Pope Leo advises, the priest should consider the devotion of the
converted soul, advanced age, and all sorts of dangers and neces­
sities of illness which may affect the penitent.179
*181
The above principle has its most evident application in the case
of the dying. A priest called to attend to a dying person should
hear that person’s confession but should not enjoin satisfaction.
He should make known the satisfaction which is due and which
would otherwise be assigned, in order that the friends of the
dying person may lighten the burden of punishment awaiting him
by their prayers and alms ; in case of recovery, however, the
penitent himself should diligently perform the satisfaction.182
As if to exemplify proportioned satisfaction, Peter states that

179 Ibid. : " Sed quia dispensatores Ecclesiae contritionis quantitatem non
perpendunt, quibus non est datum intelligere occulta cordium, omnibus leges
poenitentiae constituunt, tam magis quam minus de peccato dolentibus.
Quorum studium ad hoc praecipue tendere debet, ut cordis dolorem, quantum
his est, cognoscant, et secundum ipsius modum, satisfactionem initingani.”
130 Dist. XVI, cap. 2, n. 160, p. 840.
181 Dist. XX, cap. 4, n. 208, p. 878.
182 Ibid., n. 207, p. 877.

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

85

the Lord’s Prayer, with some fasting and almsgiving, suffices for
venial sins, provided that slight contrition has preceded and that
confession be made if there is opportunity ; the same three works
are to be applied in making satisfaction for grievous sins, but
more vehemently and more strictly.183
There is no extensive mention of the medicinal aspect of satis­
faction. Its basic principle is present, however, in Peter’s re­
peated insistence on correction of life. Moreover, he states that
the safer and more perfect practice in confessing both mortal
and venial sins is to reveal them to the priests, and to “ seek the
prescription of medicine from them.” 184

Peter of Poitiers (-(-1205)
Peter of Poitiers 185186
may be considered in his work as a con­
tinuator of the teaching of the Master of the Sentences. He
was born on an unknown date in the ancient French Province
of Poitou, the capital of which was Poitiers. He was certainly
a disciple of Peter Lombard in Paris. There he succeeded Peter
Comestor to the chair of theology in 1169. In 1193 he was ap­
pointed Chancellor of the Chapter of Notre Dame. Peter most
probably relinquished his chair of theology when he was named
chancellor.180 Yet it seems that he continued to teach until his
death on September 3, 1205.
In the writings of Peter of Poitiers some progress is noted in
the manner in which he united faith and dialectics. The basis for
his teaching was drawn from the Sacred Scriptures and the
Fathers; the expression of his arguments and explanations from
Aristotelian philosophy.
There is, however, a notable indecision in Peter’s work con­
cerning the exact place of the sacrament of Penance. He merely
makes mention of it in Book Five of his Sentences in which he
133 Dist. XVI, cap. 6, nn. 163-164, p. 844.
184 Dist. XVII, cap. 4, n. 172, p. 855.
183 He must be distinguished from Peter of Poitiers who was a monk at
Cluny in the 12th century, and from Peter of Poitiers who was a canon of
Saint-Azictor at the beginning of the 13th century.
186 Philip S. Moore, The Works of Peter of Poitiers (Notre Dame:
Univ, of Notre Dame, 1936), p. 6.

86 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
treats the other sacranlents. He places Penance in Book Three,
his moral treatise. His conception of the efficacy of the sacra­
ment is not clear; in fact, in a rather confusing passage, he calls
oral confession a sacrament of the Old Law, both because it was
commanded and practiced under the Old Law and because con­
fession (viewed as distinct and in Peter’s opinion) does not
effect what it signifies.187188
190
189
It has been suggested that Peter of Poitiers in his work was
a continuator of the teaching of the Master of the Sentences.
This does not mean that he treated questions at greater length
than Peter Lombard. His work is rather a resume of his own
lectures, a résumé inspired by the example of Peter Lombard.388
On the other hand Peter of Poitiers does have clearer state­
ments on some points than did his professor.
NATURE OF SATISFACTION

In Peter’s teaching it should be noted that the meaning of
satisfaction is not one. At one time, he designates contrition,
confession, and satisfactory, works by the single all-inclusive name
of satisfaction.389 In other cases, he seems to understand satis­
faction in the technical and limited sense as one of the penitent’s
acts in the sacrament.
Peter of Poitiers does not define satisfaction ; he does refer
to it as the means by which the temporal punishment due to
already remitted sin is taken away. As mentioned above, satis­
faction in the wide sense includes contrition, confession, and
satisfactory works:

. . . for three things demand attention {attenduntur) in
satisfaction, namely, contrition of heart, confession of
the mouth, performance of the work, just as sin is com­
mitted in three ways, by thinking, by speaking, by act. ing.390
187 Sententiarum Libri V, Lib. Ill, cap. 13 {PL 211, 1070 C-1071 B).
188 N. lung, “Pierre de Poitiers,” DTC, XII, 2 (1934), 2039.
189 Sententiarum Libri V, Lib. Ill, cap. 16 (PL 211, 1078 B-C) ; cap.
12 (PL 211, 1066 C-D).
190 Lib. Ill, cap. 12 (PL 211, 1066 C).

? ?

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

87

Here Peter lists the performance of satisfactory works as the
third part of total satisfaction. That would apparently corre­
spond to what is now called sacramental satisfaction. It will be
dear later that satisfaction in the strict sense is taken to be the
fulfillment of the work assigned by the priest.
SATISFACTORY WORKS

The works through which exterior satisfaction may be made
to God are prayer, almsgiving, fasting, and mortification of the
flesh and other like works.191
EFFECT OF SATISFACTION

The effect of satisfaction is the payment in this life of the
temporal punishment due to sin. And the inadequacy of the
satisfaction assigned and fulfilled to pay the debt will result in
further punishment in purgatory after this life. Whatever is
wanting in satisfaction here will be supplied in punishment there.
It is therefore a better thing for the penitent to abound in satis­
faction than to be less zealous in its performance.102
NECESSITY OF SATISFACTION

The primary reason for the necessity of satisfaction is that
man, by mortal sin, offends God. If he would restore himself
to a place in God’s favor, he must seek to remove the bonds of
guilt and punishment by which he is held as a result of his sin.
To really satisfy, the sinner must excite deep sorrow and repent
of his sin in order to be absolved both of guilt and of punish­
ment in the sight of God.193
Peter teaches that by a mortal sin against his neighbor, man
offends three persons: God, the Church, his fellotv man. Hence
besides the satisfaction due to God, the sinner must also remove
the bond of satisfaction owed to the Church. This he does by
confession of his sin and the performance of temporal punish­
ment.194
wi Lib. Ill, cap. 7 (PL 211, 1057 B) ; cf. ibid. (PL 211. 1056 B) ; cap.
12 (PL 211, 1066 D).
«2 Lib. ΙΠ, cap. 16 (PL 211, 1076 B).
m Ibid. (PL 211, 1077 A).
i»4 Ibid. The debt of satisfaction owed to one’s neighbor does not enter
the consideration here.

88 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

What Peter means by this debt of satisfaction to the Church is
not quite clear. It does not seem to refer to the reparation of
scandal or bad example stressed in the Fathers. It may refer to
the fact that, supposing as he does the presence of perfect con­
trition, the guilt of sin is removed by contrition, but the Church,
receiving the sinner’s confession and assigning penance through
her priests, holds a bond of temporal satisfaction.
At any rate, any contrition flowing from charity is sufficient to
remove the guilt of mortal sin, not however the temporal punish­
ment due to sin which God alone knows. That is why confes­
sors assign satisfaction, namely, to take away the punishment due
to mortal sin. Satisfaction is therefore due to God and must be
performed by man as punishment for sin.195 The root by which
man is thus held is the sin he has committed.106
Admittedly, contrition may be so great that it will suffice for
the removal of mortal sin completely, so that neither guilt nor
punishment remain. That this is true appears from the case of
the Good Thief and of St. Mary Magdalen.107
Ordinarily contrition will not be sufficiently deep to remove
both guilt and punishment, but once the guilt has been taken away,
some debt of punishment remains.
That is not, however, a debt of eternal punishment. Indeed,
against those who held that the priest absolved the penitent from
the debt of eternal damnation, Peter gave clear reply. If they
held, as they evidently did, that God personally absolves from
the guilt when, contrition is elicited, then the absolved penitent
was in the possession of charity and consequently worthy of
eternal life. In such a condition, no one is at the same time
deserving of eternal punishment, and hence he is necessarily
already absolved from it.193 Therefore the debt must be a debt
of temporal punishment.
POSSIBILITY OF SATISFACTION

Peter does not expressly teach the possibility of making satis­
faction but everywhere assumes that man can do so. Moreover,
195 Lib. Ill, cap. 7 (PL 211, 1057 A; cf. 1056 B).
199 Ibid. (PL 211, 1056 C).
1BT Lib. Ill, cap. 8 (PL 211, 1057 C).
18« Lib. HI, cap. 16 (PL 211, 1073 B-C).

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

89

he insists on the presence of grace and charity in order that such
satisfaction may be made. Some of his predecessors had ob­
jected that unless a sinner repented universally of all mortal
sins and all venial sins, he would be guilty of the impiety of
infidelity in seeking only half-pardon.199 Hence to obtain the
remission of mortal sins, the sinner must also repent of his venial
sins.200
To that objection Peter made this answer. The words of
Pseudo-Augustine, which gave the foundation for the objection,
apply only to mortal sins. A person cannot be forgiven for some
mortal crimes unless he is forgiven for all. Hence one cannot
have contrition for, nor can he licitly confess only some and not
all his mortal sins. What is more to the point here, the fulfill­
ment of satisfaction enjoined in such a case would be of no
avail because it would not be worthy (digna). Such a person
-upon full conversion at a later time, would not only be forced
to confess the sins admitted in the earlier fraudulent confession,
but he would also be compelled to accept and fulfill satisfaction
for them 201
The objection was also stated in another way. Such a man,
having confessed only one of several mortal sins, nevertheless had
true penance. For penance consists in weeping over the sins
one has committed and in avoiding a repetition of them. But
this man wept over the sin he confessed, and both proposed to
avoid and actually did avoid its commission.
In response, Peter answers : “ It is false, because he did not
weep for God’s sake, he did not weep with charity.” 202 This
total conversion and consequent presence of charity is not harmed
by igtiorance of sin, provided that that ignorance is invincible
and not a result brought about by sin itself. What is demanded
and suffices as a preparation for confession, and hence remotely
for true satisfaction, is a sincere examination of conscience.203
199 This objection apparently flows from a statement by Pseudo-Augustine,
Liber de vera et falsa poenitentia, c. 9 (PL 40, 1121).
200 Sententiarum Libri V, Lib. Ill, cap. 6 (PL 211, 1055 A).
201 Ibid, (PL 211, 1055 B-C).
202 Ibid : “ Falsum est, quia non flebat propter Deum, non flebat cum
charitate” (PL 211, 1055*D).
,
203 Ibid.

90 Sacramental Penance in the Tivelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
SACRAMENTAL SATISFACTION

Sacramental satisfaction is assigned by the priest after the
confession of sins. For contrition proceeding from charity ordi­
narily does not remit all the punishment due to sin.

And thence it is that our priests enjoin satisfaction to take
away the punishment due to mortal sin, since the guilt
has been removed through contrition.204*
This satisfaction must be proportioned to the sin. For while
a sinner who is guilty of a greater sin is not bound to be more
contrite, he is more bound to be contrite, and is especially held
to offer greater satisfaction.203
This rule of proportioned satisfaction will be influenced by the
depth of contrition. Precisely what is lacking of satisfaction in
the wider sense in contrition, is to be supplied through the ex­
terior satisfaction assigned.206
If the priest were to discover that the contrition in the penitent
were so great that it would suffice to remove both guilt and punish­
ment, it would not be necessary for him to enjoin any other
satisfaction. Yet Peter believes that such knowledge is not
had by the priest and, even if it were, that the injunction of
satisfaction would still be a good practice. In such a case, if
the satisfaction found no punishment to remove, it would still be
meritorious.207
It seems to be an accepted principle that the condition of the
penitent and his greater or less good-will likewise affect the
measure of satisfaction to be imposed.208
Peter Cantor (-f-1197)
Most of the points of the life of Peter Cantor remain obscure.
His family and his place of birth are uncertain. From the year
204 Lib. Ill, cap. 7 : “ Et inde est quod nostri sacerdotes injungunt satis­
factionem ad' delendum mortale peccatum quantum ad poenam, cum sit
deletum quantum ad reatum per contritionem” (PL 211, 1057 A); cf.
cap. 16 (PL 211, 1073 C, 1075 C-D, 1076 A-B).
™Ibid. (PL 211, 1056 B).
206Ibid. (PL 211, 1057 A).
207 Ibid. (PL 211, 1057 B).
208 Lib. Ill, cap. 16 (PL 211, 1076 C).

1

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

91

1171,. however, he was a professor in Paris. In 1184, he became
the precentor of the Bishop’s church; from that position he
received his surname.
In 1191, he was elected Bishop of Tournai by the clergy of
that See, but William of Champagne, Archbishop of Rheims, as
metropolitan, opposed his election which he judged as invalid
because of an irregularity. Étienne, abbot of Sainte-Geneviève in
Paris, intervened in Peter’s favor, but in vain. The result was
that Étienne himself was proposed as bishop by the metropolitan
and accepted by the clergy of Tournai.
On the death of Maurice Sully in 1196, Peter was elected
Bishop of Paris by the clergy and the people. But he must have
either refused the position or met with opposition from the Arch­
bishop of Rheims. The former is the more probable explana­
tion, because, at the same time, he received a letter from William
of Champagne inviting him to come to Rheims as dean of the
chapter of the archiépiscopal church.
Peter, after having obtained the consent of the chapter of the
Church of Paris, set out for Rheims. On the way, he stopped at
the Abbey of Longpont, where he fell gravely ill. While there
he took the habit of the religious of Citeaux. He died on Sep­
tember 22nd, 1197.
The only published work of Peter Cantor is the Verbum Abbreviatum. The editor, George Galopin, a Benedictine monk of
the monastery of St. Guislain, who published the work in 1639,
terms the Verbum Abbreviatum a work of moral theology.209
Peter himself states that his purpose is to give a brief and succinct
summary of the teaching of Our Lord and to offer to men the
pattern of Christ’s ways as the route to eternal happiness.210
NATURE OF SATISFACTION

One observation should' precede the consideration of the teach­
ing of Peter Cantor on satisfaction. He intended to make a
summary of the words of Our Lord as recorded in Sacred
Scripture. Be it said to his credit that he fulfilled that aim. His
work is replete with quotations from which he draws the basis
209 Editor's introduction as reproduced in Migne (PL 205, 22).
210 Verbum Abbreviation, cap. 1 (PL 205, 23 A),

/

92 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth, and Thirteenth Centuries

for his doctrine. He does not, however, offer an orderly treat­
ment of the subject matter. As will appear in the following
examination, his doctrine on satisfaction is gathered from several
chapters of his work.
Peter Cantor does not define satisfaction. Put, from what he
teaches about it, satisfaction appears in general to be a punish­
ment for sin. This is to be understood as a temporal punishment
in this life as opposed to the flames of hell or pains of purgatory
to be inflicted in the future life.
SATISFACTORY WORKS

Among the satisfactory works by which this important goal
may be reached are: all good works, mortification of the flesh,
almsgiving, and prayer. Finally, confession, through which the
antidote to sin is obtained from the confessor, is also a very
important part of satisfaction.211
EFFECT OF SATISFACTION

The effect of satisfaction is the remission of temporal punish­
ment due to sin. This punishment, in so far as it is not fulfilled
by man himself, will be visited upon man in purgatory. That
is why the quantity and painfulness of satisfaction must com­
pare with the purgatorial fire :

,

. . . for either God punishes, or man. If God, in pur­
gatorial fire, the lightest punishment of which is more
grave and painful than the most admirable torments of
all the martyrs. If man, by temporal punishment, which
must compare with the purgatorial according to the
capability of man.212
Further strength is accorded this teaching by the fact that Peter
repeats elsewhere, in a negative way, that man can avoid and
should avoid purgatory. The danger of failing in that obliga­

211 Ibid., cap. 143 (PL 205, 342 D).
212 Ibid., cap. 146
aut enim Deus punit, aut homo. Si Deus, in
igne purgatorio, cujus levissima poena gravior et acerbior est, quam omnium
martyrum exquisitissima tormenta. Si homo, temporali poena, quae aequipollere debet purgatorio pro posse hominis. . .
(PL 205, 350 D).

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

93

tion is one of the reasons for accelerating penance and not waiting
until late in life.213
It may be worth noting that Peter seems to envision only the
satisfactory value of satisfaction. Speaking of the increased
value of greater penalties he states that men “ by a greater tor­
ment do not merit a greater reward, but more rapid liberation.” 214
Either he practically denies the possibility of abundant satisfac­
tion, or, in the case of abundant satisfaction, he excludes any
additional meritorious value.
NECESSITY OF SATISFACTION

He does state the necessity of satisfaction as a part of Penance.
“For the sufficiency, perfection, and integrity of Penance, four
things are necessary, namely, the infusion of grace, contrition
of heart, confession of the mouth, worthy {digna} satisfaction of
deed {operis}." 215 Peter illustrates the necessity of these four
parts with various citations from Sacred Scripture, especially
from the Fiftieth Psalm, the Miserere.™
The general principle is that sin cannot remain unpunished ;
either man punishes it himself, or God will punish it. If man
punishes his sin, he does so by temporal punishment. If God
punishes sin, He does so in the fire of purgatory after this life.21’
Peter demonstrates that this punishment remains due even after
the forgiveness of God has been obtained. Toward this end he
introduces the example of David. Speaking of the part played
by denial of food and austerity of dress in the labor of penance,
Peter shows that David applied such abstinence out of sorrow
for his sin. As a result, he heard the desired word of pardon
from God through Nathan. And yet David was further punished
and he suffered persecution “ on account of the remains of sin,
not of the guilt, I say, but of the punishment.” 218
Because God will punish sin if man does not do so himself,
ais Ibid., cap. 149 (PL 205, 358 A).
™Ibid., cap. 146 (PL 205, 350 D).
213 Verbum Abbreviatum, cap. 141 (PL 205, 339 A).
^Ibid. (PL 205, 339 B-C).
™ Ibid., cap. 146 (PL 205, 350 D) ; cf. cap. 149 (PL 205, 358 A).

ι

.
'

I
J
I
’ |

94 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

satisfaction is very necessary. This is especially true because of
the exceeding pain of the punishments of purgatory, which are
far more grievous than all the punishments of the martyrs on
earth.219 Hence Peter urges man to raise himself from the abyss
of vice through penance.
Therefore, in order that you may be lifted up from the
abyss of vices, stir yourself through sorrow, cry out
through dread of hell, weep through piety, “ Have mercy
on your soul, pleasing God : ” call out through confession,
prayer, and holy operation. . . .22°

He exhorts man to compensate for past sinful delights through
austerity of life.221
POSSIBILITY OF SATISFACTION

Man is able to make satisfaction to God. Peter does not yet
offer a definite treatment of the possibility, but he assumes it as
a fact. In offering advice to confessors on their office in the
confessional, Peter states that the priest may address the penitent
in these words :

You confess to God alone, whose vicar I am, so that
neither, by wrord, nod, or sign am I able to disclose those
things revealed to Him. You who confess to me, I am
bound to you in spiritual fatherhood, in order that I
may bear your sins just as those of a son, that I may
grieve for them, that with you I may satisfy for them.
Be confident therefore, and do penance, [and] I will
assure you that if you will execute my advice, and I
vow myself a surety on this matter, that you will be
completely freed.222
210Ibid., cap. 146 (PL 205, 350 D) ; cf. cap. 149 (PL 205, 358 A).
820 Ibid., cap. 142 : “ Ergo, ut de abysso vitiorum susciteris, turba teipsuni
per dolorem, infreme per gehennae horrorem, lacrymare per pietatem,
* Miserere animae tuae placens Deo (Eccli. 30) : ’ clama per confessionem,
orationem et sanctam operationem. . . .” (PL 205, 340 D).
Ibid., cap. 145 (PL 205, 349 A).
222 Verbum Abbreviatum, cap. 65: “Soli Deo confiteris, cujus ego sum
vicarius, ut nec verbo, nutu, vel signo ei revelata possim detegere. Qui
mihi confiteris, tibi' obligor in paternitate spirituali, ut peccata tua, sicut et
filii supportem, pro illis doleam, et tecum pro illis satisfaciam. Confide

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

95

His last statement, “ completely freed,” would certainly indicate
a fulfillment of the temporal punishment. Otherwise a penitent
could not be said to be completely freed. Yet Peter gives no
other indication that these words are to be understood in tire
fullest sense. That does not destroy their effectiveness, however,
since in any case his statement would seem to indicate that the
penitent is able to fulfill his obligation of satisfaction.
Peter Cantor teaches that worthy satisfaction (digna satisfactio)
is a part of Penance. He does not yet offer any of the technical
distinctions between the various degrees of satisfaction which
man can offer. There is one indication, however, that Peter
recognizes that man, whatever .be the degree of satisfaction he
offers, cannot offer recompense which is perfect in the fullest
sense. He seems to teach that the only worthy recompense comes
from Christ. For after urging the sinner to be reconciled and
restored to the Lord, he adds,
. . . you may say : “ What shall I render to the Lord for
all the things that He hath rendered to me? I will take
the chalice of salvation, and I will call upon the name of
the Lord.” For the only worthy recompense comes
from Him Who has not sinned, since blood is atoned
for by blood, to Whom we owe everything, that “ we
live and move and have our being.” *
223

The meaning seems to be that the sinner should call upon the
name of the Lord through Whom alone he can offer satisfac­
tion, because only Christ was able to offer strict recompense for
sin. Yet earlier Peter had warned the sinner to offer “ condign
and fruitful penance ” for his sins.224 Admitting the fact that
terminology was not yet fixed, Peter seems to vision a difference
ergo, et age poenitentiam, quod si consilium meum egeris, promittoque me
super hoc fidejussorem, dabo, quod ex toto liberaberis” (PL 205, 199 A).
223 Ibid., cap. 145 : “ Imo, primo reconciliare ei, et te ipsum ablatum
restitue, post, reconciliatione et restitutione facta, dicas : * Quid retribuam
Domino pro omnibus quae retribuit mihi ? Calicem salutaris ac^Jtpiam, et
nomen Domini invocabo.’ Sola enim digna recompensatio est ab eo etiam
qui nihil peccavit, cum sanguis sanguine recompensatur, cui debemus omne,
quod 'vivimus, movemur et sumus (Act. 17)
(PL 205, 349 B—C).
™Ibid.; cf. cap. 141 (PL 205, 339) ; cap. 145 (PL 205, 348 B).

ί
1

96 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

between man’s worthy or condign satisfaction, and that recom­
pense which is worthy in the most complete sense.
conditions

Peter Cantor also lists certain conditions for the performance
of satisfaction. Indeed all the conditions known in later theo­
logians might be drawn from his doctrine, but we shall limit the
consideration to those he mentions explicitly. Even those which
he does mention explicitly are not in an orderly fashion arrayed
in relation to satisfaction.
On man’s part Peter would require the conditions of temporal
life and the state of grace. For he urges the sinner, “ Perform
condign and fruitful penance while you live.” 220 Moreover, he
devotes an entire chapter to a consideration of the brevity of
life, which must be a spur to performing penance. For in these
few days of life on earth, man must prepare adequately for
eternity.226 In listing those' four things which pertain to the
perfection of Penance, Peter lists the infusion of grace first. He
then continues, having named contrition, confession, and satisfac­
tion as the other parts :

These three without the first are insufficient. For with­
out avail do we sorrow, do we confess, do we offer satis­
faction, and are we afflicted by the labor of punishment,
without the infusion of grace, without faith operating
through love. Therefore, believe, hope, and love, in
order that you may sorrow, confess, labor with profit.227
These words speak for themselves. And were they not sufficient,
Peter seems to insinuate the necessity of the state of grace in
another statement. For he teaches that the priest must sometimes
give a sharp punishment to penitents who refuse to restore what
they have taken away. In such a case the priest should refuse
to enjoin satisfaction. The purpose of this denial is to bring
220 Ibid.
226 Ibidi, cap. 147 (PL 205, 351 C-355 A) ; cf. cap. 146 (PL 205, 351 B).
227 Ibid., cap. 141: “Tria sine primo insufficientia sunt. Inutiliter enim
conterimur, confitemur, satisfacimus, et labore poenae affligimur, sine in­
fusione gratiae, sine fide operante per dilectionem. Credas igitur, speres, et
diligas, ut utiliter conteraris, confitearis, opereris’’ (PL 205, 339 A-B),

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

the penitent to true penance and compunction.22® Thus he seems
to make the state of grace and charity a necessary prelude to
satisfaction. He states explicitly elsewhere that the first steps
in penance are reconciliation and restitution.229
Peter Cantor would seem to demand that the works of satis­
faction be freely performed or accepted, and that they be penal
in character. In regard to voluntariety, he points out that “ one
waiting up to the day of death to repent rarely has true penance.
For then rather sins put him off, than he puts off sins.” 230 Besides,
Peter urges penitents to perform works of satisfaction which
could only be performed at the command of the will.
The need of a penal aspect in satisfaction arises from the very
reason for making satisfaction, namely, to perform the temporal
punishment due to sin. The principle mentioned earlier applies
once again: either man punishes his sin or God will punish it.
Peter further holds that the punishment in either case will be a
torment {cruciatus). The penal aspect is so important that Peter
points out that, supposing equal charity, the greater the penalty
which is carried, the more rapid will be the remission of the debt
of temporal punishment.

;
'
[
i

ί
|
I

,

J
i

In like manner, how great penance ought to be is clear
from the fact that a greater and more painful torment,
indeed in equal charity, brings more rapid absolution in
purgatory; therefore also in penance which must com­
pare with it [purgatory]. Consequently he does less
penance who is less tormented, even though he has equal
charity. He indeed who is more tormented is more
quickly freed from the punishment of sin. . . ?31

I

i
;
Ϊ

j
ϊ

•ί
1

i

f
À.

97

'

SACRAMENTAL SATISFACTION

Satisfaction is to be imposed by the priest. Peter lists the
imposition of satisfaction as one of the four means placed in the
2™Ibid„ cap. 144 (PL 205, 344 C).
Ibid., cap. 145 (PL 205, 349 B).
230 Ibid.: “ fvx pectaris poenitere usque a<i diem mortis, raro vere poenitet.
Tunc enim potius peccata eum dimittunt, quam ipse peccata ” (PL 205,
349 B).
Ibid., cap. 146 (PL 205, 350 D-351 A).

98 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
hands of the prelate (priest) to root out sins.232 Moreover the
priest must impose this satisfaction in quality and quantity corre­
sponding to the quality and quantity of the fault. Only where
the fruits of penance or satisfaction correspond to the guilt does
man escape the wrath to come.233 “ For the fruit of penance or
of good work is not the same for him who has sinned not at all
or only slightly as it is for him who has sinned doing evil or
more seriously.” 234
Moreover, in order to erase the debt of temporal punishment
in this life, the quantity and painfulness of satisfaction must
compare (a equip oil ere) with the fires of purgatory in which God
would otherwise punish man. The condition of the penitent,
however, will affect this proportion of satisfaction to the pains
otherwise awaiting man in purgatorial fire. Peter states that such
proportion will be attained “ if [man] has enkindled the fire of
penance’s tribulation and pwinfulness according to his powers.”
If man has not done so, he will neither have punished himself
sufficiently nor have repented sincerely. In the light of what he
has taught, Peter concludes that few truly repent.235
Satisfaction should likewise be accommodated to the kind of
sin. The priest is a doctor as well as a judge;,hence he must
cure as well as purge.236 The same rule that is met in other
theologians appears here: vices are cured by opposite satisfaction.
As Peter advises :

Against the softness and past pleasures of the flesh,
sleep in sack-cloth ; cure excess sleep by many watch­
ings; free youfself from gluttony by fasting, dry up
drunkenness with thirst, and thus cure contraries by their
opposites. . . ,237
232 Verbum Abbreviatum, cap. 65 (PL 205, 198 D).
2SS Ibid., cap. 145 (PL 205, 348 B).
234 Ibid., cap. 141 : “ Non enim poenitentiae vel fructus boni operis est ei
qui nihil vel parum peccavit, sicut ei qui malum vel plus peccavit” (PL
205, 339 D).
233 Ibid., cap. 146 (PL 205, 350 D, 351 B).
233 Ibid., cap. 144 (PL 205, 344 B).
237 Ibid., cap. 146: “Contra mollitiem et delicias carnis praeteritas, dormias
in sacco; somnos nimios vigiliis multis cures; gastrimargiam jejunio releves,
ebrietatem siti arefacias, sicque contrariis contraria cures . .
(PL 205,
351 A).

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

■)

i

■
/
:

[
t

99

That satisfaction is thus both penal and medicinal follows. Indeed
“ penance has two hands : penitential labor to take away past sins ;
castigation of the flesh to avoid future sins.” 238
Alain de Lille (co. 1120-1203)
If legend is omitted and only historical data allowed, very little
is known about the life of Alain de Lille.239 He was born at
Lille, probably about 1120. He taught with great success at Paris
and also at Montpellier. He died at Citeaux as a monk in 1202
or 1203.240
Alain’s most important theological work is his Tractatus Contra
Haereticos, in four books.· The greater part of his teaching on
Penance, however, is contained in three other compositions : the
Liber Poenitentialis ; the opusculum De Sex Alis Cherubim, which
has often been ascribed to Saint Bonaventure ; and the Summa De
Arte Praedicatoria.
NATURE OF SATISFACTION

j
*

Alain of Lille seems to be occupied for the most part in stress­
ing the need of making satisfaction which is proportionate to the
crime, but he at least touches several of the other fundamentals.
He likewise seems to deal exclusively with sacramental satisfac­
tion, although there is one passage which will be cited later in
which he mentions satisfaction independent of the sacrament.
There is, however, no definite distinction made between the two.
Alain does offer a very useful distinction between interior and
exterior penance.241 Interior penance is contrition of heart, by
which a person weeps over his crimes, with a will never to repeat
their commission. Exterior penance is satisfaction which accom­
panies repentance. It is called penance because it has a quasi
hold on man (quasi poena tenens hominem) through punishment.
Alain defines satisfaction as “ the expletive performance of
enjoined penance or the condign punishment and correction of
238 Ibid., cap. 81 (PL 205, 250 A).
239 Among the various usages accorded his name: Alain of Lille. Alain de
I’Isle, Alarms ab Insulis, Alanus de Insulis.
249 Cf. M. Jacquin, “Alain de Lille,” DHGE, I (1912), 1299-1304.
241 Liber Poenitentialis (PL 210, 295 B).

100 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

sins.” 242 This satisfaction is one of the three parts of the sacra­
ment of Penance. More precisely, the author’s description of
the place and function of satisfaction in the sacrament lends
clarity to his definition.

Satisfaction follows confession. Compunction creates
and forms these first two wings. For in every action of
penance, these three are proved to be necessary, com­
punction, confession, satisfaction. Compunction, how­
ever, stirs up, confession accuses, satisfaction strengthens ;
compunction searches out the occasion of the disease,
confession manifests it, satisfaction cures it. Compunc­
tion enumerates the evils, confession condemns, satis­
faction corrects. Compunction punctures the ulcer,
confession forces out the pus, satisfaction applies the
poultice. Compunction finds the wound, confession lays
it open, satisfaction restores health.243
Penance is had when the sinner rejects and condemns his evil
acts, but only when satisfaction follows, as a punishment and
correction of those evil acts, are the fruits of penance produced.244
SATISFACTORY WORKS

Among the works which accompany true penance are the
feathers of the wing of satisfaction : the renunciation of sin, the
pouring out of tears, the mortification of the flesh, the giving of
alms, the devotion of prayer.245 Included, then, are the three
242 He Sex Alis Cherubim, Ala Secunda (PL 210, 275 D).
243 Ibid.: "Confessionem sequitur satisfactio. Has duas primas alas creat
et format compunctio. In omni enim actione poenitentiae, haec tria neces­
saria esse comprobantur, compunctio, confessio, satisfactio. Compunctio
autem turbat, confessio accusat, satisfactio confortat; compunctio morbi
occasionem investigat, confessio manifestat, satisfactio curat. Compunctio
mala enumerat, confessio condemnat, satisfactio emendat. Compunctio
apostema pungit, confessio saniem exprimit, satisfactio cataplasma apponit.
Compunctio vulnus invenit, confessio aperit, satisfactio sanitatem restituit ”
(PL 210, 274 C). Alain also enumerates satisfaction as a part of Penance
in the following: Summa de Arte Praedicatoria, cap. 31 (PL 210, 173 D) ;
Tractatus Contra Haereticos, Libri Quatuor, Lib. I, c. 54 (PL 210, 358
A) ; Liber Poenitentialis (PL 210, 289 D).
mibid. (PL 210, 275 D).
w^Tbid. (PL 210, 276 B, D) ; cf. Liber Poenitentialis (PL 210, 301 B291 C-D) ; Summa de Arte Praedicatoria, c. 32 (PL 210, 174 A).

The Doctrine of the Tzvelfth Century

101

major chasses of satisfactory works known today, though Alain
does not give them distinctive listing as types.
EFFECT OF SATISFACTION

The effect of satisfaction is the avoidance of the fires of purga­
tory and hell otherwise due after this life. But principally the
payment of the punishment, which would be exacted after this
life in purgatory, is achieved through satisfaction in the present.246
Another effect is insinuated in this, that one of the reasons for
satisfaction is that the flesh, which gave rise to growth of vice
previously, may be brought through penance to promote the
increase of virtues.247
NECESSITY OF SATISFACTION

Satisfaction is necessary because it was commanded by Christ,
from Whom it received its beginning.

Exterior penance had its beginning from Christ through
preaching, from Job an example through satisfaction,
from David through teaching and instruction. . . .24S

ί

Its value is likewise demonstrated by the preaching of St. John
the Baptist and by the examples of Achab and the Ninivites.240
Satisfaction is no less necessary by reason of the punishment
which is due to sins. Indeed, while contrition at times may be
sufficient to remove completely both guilt and punishment, ordi­
narily it is not. Some punishment must be undergone, and
satisfaction is ordained to fulfil that need.250
Indeed the priest is advised to warn the penitent of the mag­
nitude of his sins and of the great punishments which would
befall him were he to die in those sins. On the other hand,
the priest should encourage the sinner by pointing out that he
24« Summa de Arte Praedicatoria, c. 32 (PL 210, 174 D-175 A).
™ Ibid. (PL 210, 174 C).
248 Ibid. : “ Exterior poenitentia a Christo habuit exordium per praedica­
tionem, a Job exemplum per satisfactionem, a David per magisterium et
instructionem. . .
(PL 210, 174 A).
249Liber Poenitentialis (PL 210, 301 B, C).
Ibid. (PL 210, 290 D).

102 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
can be freed from those punishments by suffering now through
penance.251
Alain comes very close to stating the principle in later theological
terminology when he asserts :
One must be placed in this purgatorial fire in the present,
that he may not be tortured finally in the flame of hen.2·52
It would seem at first glance that Alain limits the choice of the
sinner to punishment on earth or eternal punishment. His own
particular explanation which follows, however, shows that Alain
held the traditional doctrine. Satisfaction in the present life
remits the debt of temporal punishment otherwise exacted in pur­
gatory after this present life. He implies that neglect of satis­
faction in this life is gravely culpable and therefore leads to hell.
Immediately after the statement quoted above, Alain continues :
“There is a three-fold fire, purgatorial, probatary, peremptory;
the purgatorial is satisfaction, the probatary is trial (tentatio),
the peremptory is eternal damnation.” The sinner who pays his
debt in the purgatorial fire is freed from the probatory and per­
emptory fires. In Alain’s words: “If we are purged in the
first, we are freed in the second and the third. If we do not
experience the first, we shall feel the second, nay more (which
is more grievous !) the peremptory.” 283
The purgatorial fire includes both satisfaction in the present
life and purgatory after this life. “ Moreover the purgatorial fire
is two-fold, one during life, namely penance, the other after life,
namely purgatorial punishment.” As noted above, Alain calls both
purgatorial fires by the single name of satisfaction. He con­
cludes that satisfaction in the present life prevents the suffering
of purgatorial punishment and, what is more, of eternal punish­
ment. “ The first purgatorial fire excludes two other fires, namely
the second purgatorial fire and the eternal peremptory fire.” 254
w-Ibid. (PL 210, 289 C).
252 Summa de Arte Praedicatoria, cap. 32 : “ In hoc igne purgatorio debet
constitui in praesenti, ne crucietur peremptorie in flamma gehennali ” (PL
210, 174 D).
253 Ibid.
25* Ibid.

;

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

103

Therefore satisfaction in the present life is necessary to avoid
the punishments of purgatory in the next life. Alain notes that
satisfaction is a sort of “ shadow and picture ” of purgatory.
He adds his reasons for this statement:

. . . because just as the shadow and picture of material
fire inflicts no bodily pain, but material fire itself inflicts
torture or flame: thus the fire of penance has nothing
of bitterness in comparison with the second purgatorial
fire. Because, as Augustine says, the punishment of
purgatory is much more grave than any temporal punish­
ment.255
Such disproportion should move the sinner to accept the invita­
tion to penance which'God offers in His mercy.
The necessity of satisfaction is so great that man should be
certain to perform it even extra-sacramentally. In this one
passage Alain states that the sinner must, of his own volition,
continue to redeem his sins by almsgiving, fasting, watching, and
prayers, even when the priest fails to impose penance on him, no
matter whether that omission proceeds from a lack of discre­
tion, a sort of natural piety, or a conjecture of superabundant
contrition in the penitent.256
POSSIBILITY OF SATISFACTION

Concerning the possibility of making satisfaction, Alain seems
to content himself with the mere statement that man is able to
satisfy.257 He likewise teaches that it is impossible for a man
to make satisfaction for one sin while he remains in other crimes,
thus insinuating, at least, the prerequisite of the state of grace for
the performance of true satisfaction.258 Finally, while a sinner
cannot satisfy for one mortal sin while unrepentant for others, he
nevertheless can obtain from God the more rapid conversion of
heart.255 Here is the germ of the supernatural character of satis­
faction in so far as it must proceed under the help of grace.
25' Ibid.
2Sfi Liber Poenitentialis (PL 210, 301 B).
257 Ue Sex Alis Cherubim, Ala Secunda (PL 210, 276 A).
Liber Poenitentialis (PL 210, 303 B).
a»» Ibid.

104 Sacramental Penance tn the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
SACRAMENTAL SATISFACTION

With the one exception mentioned earlier, Alain seems to en­
vision satisfaction exclusively as sacramental. Therefore his
repeated insistence rests on the fact that the assignment of satis­
faction is made by the priest. Thus the sinner is urged to offer
perfect obedience to the priest who enjoins satisfaction.260 More­
over the need of receiving the injunction of satisfaction from
the priest was at least a partial reason for the institution of the
obligation of making a full confession of sins to the priest.
Unless the priest knows the sins, he cannot enjoin satisfaction
as a cure for them.?61 Moreover, while there are definite penances
still prescribed for certain sins, it belongs to the priest to fix a
reasonable manner of penance.262
The sinner must not only repent and bring forth the fruits of
penance in satisfaction, but he must bring forth worthy fruits.263
More specifically, through penance he must offer of himself as
many holocausts of satisfaction, as he had offered of himself
vices to the devil.264
Hence the priest is ordinarily obliged to enjoin satisfaction.
If the penitent seems to have a sufficient spirit of repentance,
the confessor should assign satisfaction according to the state of
the sin. Sometimes contrition will be so abundant that it will
remove the necessity of additional satisfaction, because it takes
away completely both guilt and punishment. Yet even in such
cases, the omission of the injunction should be rare because of
the danger of relapse into sins for which no punishment was
given.265 The general rule to be followed by the priest is that
ordinarily he should assign satisfaction to every penitent, even
the deeply contrite, unless the signs of immense contrition are
exteriorly manifest.286 Further, he should assign that satisfac­
tion according to the quantity and quality of the sins.267
2<i0 Sermo III, De Timore Judicii, in Quadragesima (PL 210, 206 B).
201 Tractatus Contra Haereticos, Lib. I, c. 56 (PL 210, 359 A).
2t>2 Liber Poenitentialis (PL 210, 297 D-298 A).
203 De Sex Alls Cherubim (PL 210, 276 A).
so-» Sumina de Arte Praedicatoria, c. 32 (PL 210, 174 C).
Liber Poenitentialis (PL 210, 290 C-D).
206 Ibid.
267 De Sex Alis Cherubim (PL 210, 275 D).

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

■
ΐ

#
i
I
f

'

j

i

105

Just as medicine is given to a patient according to the quantity
of the disease and yet is moderated according to the strength of
the patient, so also according to the quantity of the sin satisfac­
tion is measured, but further decreased or increased according
to the weakness or capability of the penitent. Besides, the degree
of contrition must be considered.268
The priest must consider the state of the person upon whom
satisfaction is to be enjoined. Some penitents are strong enough
to endure the austerity of fasting or the strain of watching.
Others, physically less prepared, should rather be given penances
of prayer and almsgiving, pilgrimages and good works. And this
variation of the satisfaction still fulfills the notion of true penance
. because God does not regard how much is given, but from how
much love it is given.209
The priest is also a spiritual physician, and therefore should
aim to give, not merely proportioned punishment in satisfaction,
but also to enjoin penances which will have a medicinal or curative character. Thus he must endeavor to heal the spiritual evils
by assigning as satisfaction penances contrary to them. Such a
goal involves the consideration of the quality or kind of the sin.
One guilty of intoxication would be given sound medicine in the
injunction of fasting as a penance.270
In summation, for lesser sins a lighter satisfaction is required,
and for greater sins a greater satisfaction.271 This rule may be
influenced by the depth of contrition, the state of the penitent,
and the kind of sins.
Following earlier leads, Alain declares that venial sins are re­
mitted through daily prayer.272
:
In caring for those who are ill, the priest ought not to assign
satisfaction, but rather to make it known in order that the sick
.
penitent may fulfill it should God give him additional time of
life. But as a sort of quasi-satisfaction, the priest should urge
* 268 Liber Poenitentialis (PL 210, 291 A).
2™Ibid. (PL 210, 291 C-D).
270 Ibid (PL 210, 291 D-292 A ; 289 C) ; cf. Summa de Arte Praedica- .
toria, c. 32 (PL 210, 174 B, C) ; De Se.r Alis Cherubim (PL 210, 275 D).
an Ibid. (PL 210, 301 C).
2·« Ibid.

106 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
him to bear with patience and devotion the trials sent him by
God in his illness.273

Peter oe Blois (ca. 1135-12041
Peter was born at Blois about 1135 of a noble family. He
studied at least some of the courses of letters at Tours. After­
ward he was sent to Paris where he m<iv have followed the lec­
tures of John of Salisbury, who taught there from 1140 to 1150.
From Paris Peter went to Bologna to pursue studies in medi­
cine and mathematics. While at Bologna he became known among
his fellow students for his eloquence and intellectual gifts. Tn
1160 or 1161, Peter, while on his way to visit Pope Alexander
ITT, underwent an assault at the hands of the partisans of the
anti-pope, Victor IV.
On his return to Paris Peter studied the sacred sciences:
philosophy, theology, and Sacred Scripture. In a very few years
he became one of the most celebrated theologians of his times.
At the completion of his studies, about 1167, Peter went to
Sicily. There he succeeded Gauthier; who had become the Arch­
bishop of Palermo, as tutor to the young king, William II. Peter
soon became a power to be recognized in his influence at court.
The Sicilians were envious of this power, and while their various
schemes to oust him were not the direct cause of his departure,
Peter left -Sicily in 1169 despite the king’s desire to hold him
there.
His return to France brought him a brief teaching assignment.
But soon, at the request of Henry II, he went to the royal court
in England. There he was appointed the Chancellor of Richard,
Archbishop of Canterbury. Under Richard he was charged with
three missions to Rome, to regulate the affairs of both the arch­
bishop and the king, during the pontificates of Alexander TIT
and Urban III. When Henry II died, Queen Eleanor made Peter
her secretary, a post he filled from 1191 to 1195. His influence
here again roused new enemies who caused him eventually to lose
his title of Archdeacon of Bath.
The Bishop of London, however, promptly appointed him his
archdeacon and made him dean of a chapter in the Diocese of
^3 ibid. (PL 210, 296 D).

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

107

Chester. The scandalous lives of the canons in the latter post
caused Peter to write to Innocent III in 1199, urging that the
chapter be given into the hands of the Cistercians.
Peter of Blois died in poverty some time after 1204.
Peter was a prolific writer, but many of his works were not
preserved. Among those which were preserved no compendium
is to be found. He did write short treatises on sacramental con­
fession and on the priest’s duty in enjoining satisfaction, but even
these contain no complete doctrine on the sacrament of Penance.
Nevertheless he is an interesting witness to the theological thought
of the times. The fundamentals of the doctrine on Penance, and
hence on satisfaction, are to be found succinctly stated in one of
his poems—De Poenitentia.
I
NATURE OF SATISFACTION

Satisfaction is part of the means by which sins are completely
purged. Hence Peter of Blois warns the sinner to repent and
to note carefully the five necessary parts of that process : “ Hope
of pardon, contrite heart, confession of guilt, punishment of satis­
faction, and the fleeing of evil.” 274
SATISFACTORY WORKS

The works by which the fulfillment of satisfaction may be
made are the fruits of penance. Among these are watching, fast­
ing, discipline, and the mortification of the flesh.275
EFFECT OF SATISFACTION

The effect of satisfaction is the remission of temporal punish­
ment, which would otherwise be suffered in purgatory. “ For
what you will not have purged out in the present, God will purge
in the fire of purgatory.” 276
NECESSITY OF SATISFACTION

This satisfaction, as Peter states, is a punishment of sin.
Punishment will be visited either by man himself through satis274Poemata, IV De Poenitentia (PL 207, 1153 C).
2?5 Liber de Confessione Sacramenlali (PL 207, 1086 B).
276 Ibid,

108 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

faction or by God through the fire of purgatory.277 The necessity
of satisfaction flows from this fact of the punishment of sin;
hence Peter’s urging to be " solicitous to fulfill the satisfactory
punishment.” 278 This is evidently not eternal punishment, for
Peter insinuates that it is one which may be forgiven in contrite
reconciliation with God, though it is not necessarily forgiven.
In exhorting confessors to receive penitents with mercy, he states:
“ How do you know if he is already7 cleansed by7 tears and con­
trition ? Perhaps he was freed by the very resolve to confess.”2,9
POSSIBILITY OF SATISFACTION

Man can make satisfaction because it is a part of Penance. The
purgation of sins in general was made possible because Christ
mercifully assigned to man as means, “contrition of heart, con­
fession of mouth, affliction of the flesh.” 280 Moreover, the Judge
receiving these acts is merciful.281
CONDITIONS

Peter seems to indicate the need of the state of grace for the
performance of satisfaction .when he points out that confession,
which must precede satisfaction, should include all mortal sins
committed.282 The condition of temporal life may well be con­
tained in his advice to the sinner, “ Repent quickly.” 283 It is
more evidently required as he points out that man must purge
out sin “ in the present.” 284 The supernatural character of satis­
faction would logically follow the statement that even the ability
to weep over one’s sins is a gift of God’s grace.285
277 Ibid,
278 De Poenitentia (PL 207, 1155 B).
279 Tè Poenitentia vel Satisfactione a Sacerdote Injungenda (PL 207
1097 A).
‘
2S0 Liber de Confessione Sacramentati (PL 207, 1086 B).
283 De Poenitentia (PL 207, 1153 C).
282 Ibid. (PL 207, 1154 C).
283 Ibid. (PL 207, 1153 C).
284 Liber de Confessione Sacramentali (PL 207, 1085 B)
285 Ibid. (PL 207, 1087 B).

The Doctrine of the Twelfth Century

109

SACRAMENTAL SATISFACTION

That Peter taught the imposition of satisfaction by the priest
is more than evident, since he devoted a special short treatise to
that very point. Even elsewhere he states the same doctrine.
Implicitly he urges penitents to fulfill the penances enjoined upon
them.28® Explicitly he mentions as one of the possible ways by
which a priest could be guilty of revealing sins confessed to him
the injunction of excessively severe satisfaction.2ST
In assigning satisfaction, the priest, mindful of his own weak­
ness, should be neither too harsh nor too lenient. Rather he must
follow a middle course so that neither excessive remission of
punishment be supposed nor excessive austerity in satisfaction be
exercised. This middle course is open to the priest if he follows
the penances instituted by the Fathers, and imposes them accord­
ing to the kind of sin.288
Elsewhere Peter points out that the penance must be propor­
tioned to the guilt. Yet that general principle admits of other
influences. Ordinarily, lighter satisfaction should be enjoined
where contrition is greater. Besides, the confessor should con­
sider the circumstances of the cause of the sin, the character of «
the vice, the condition of the person, in order to moderate the
penance accordingly.280
The satisfaction enjoined should be proportioned to the kind
of sin as well. For just as doctors apply different cures for fever,
wound, or tumor, “ thus souls demand various medicines.” The
confessor as spiritual doctor should assign penances contrary to ·
the disease.200
Where the penitent is seriously ill, he should be aided to repent
and to confess his sins, but satisfaction should not be imposed
on him. Rather it should be intimated in order that the penitent
can fulfill it in case of his return to health.201
™>lbid. (PL 207, 1085 B).
287 De Poenitentia vel Satisfactione a Sacerdote Injungenda (PL 207,
1092 D).
288 Ibid. (PL 207, 1093 C) ; cf. De Poenitentia (PL 207, 1155 B).
™>De Poenitentia (PL 207, 1156 A-B).
™ Ibid. (PL 207, 1156 A).
291 Ibid. (PL 207, 1154 D).

JL

CHAPTER V
THE DOCTRINE OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

In this century the theologians of the great Scholastic period
assumed the traditional doctrine of the Church on satisfaction as
it was handed to them or taught to them. Their basic text was
the work of Peter Lombard upon which they composed com­
mentaries.
It is already evident that the authors of the preceding century
taught all the fundamental points of the doctrine. The great
Scholastics took those fundamentals, made steps toward a more
uniform vocabulary, and elaborated the doctrine with a more
intimate scrutiny of the fine points and a more detailed explana­
tion of accepted principles.1
The doctrine as the thirteenth century authors expounded it
was substantially the doctrine later crystallized in the Council of
Trent. Even modern theologians have been able to add little to
the speculative theology of satisfaction. They have accomplished
a better synthesis and have given a more orderly treatment of
the questions involved. On the practical side, post-Tridentine
theologians have drawn from the fundamental principles conclu­
sions which are an aid in the dealings of the confessor with the
penitent.2
Here in the thirteenth century we find the firm foundation for
the later perfection of the theology of sacramental satisfaction.
Alexander of Hales (-j-1245)
Alexander was born at Hales or Hailles in Gloucestershire,
toward the end of the twelfth century, perhaps about 1180. He
received his education at the local monastic school and probably
also at Oxford. When he had finished his studies in England,
1 Ê. Amann, “ La Pénitence Privée ; son organization ; premières specula­
tions a son sujet,” DTC, XII, 1 (1933), 933-934.
2 P. Galtier, “ Satisfaction,’’ DTC, XIV, 1 (1939), 1190.

110

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

111

Alexander went to the University of Paris where he attained the
Master’s degree, first in Arts and then in Theology.
Roger Bacon is the authority for stating that Alexander was
the Magister regens in the faculty of Arts in 1210, the first
biographical date of which we are certain. From Bacon also we
learn that Alexander was an archdeacon, probably because of a
benefice he held in England.
By 1220, Alexander was a member of the faculty of Theology.
.In 1231, he entered the Franciscan Order, continuing, however,
to exercise his duties as a teacher of theology. This fact was of
great importance to the University of Paris and to the course
of studies in the Franciscan Order.
Alexander died at the Franciscan Convent in Paris on August
21, 1245.
The principal work of Alexander of Hales is his Summa
'Theologiae which he began in 1231 and which remained incom­
plete and unfinished at his death. In 1256 Pope Alexander IV
ordered the Provincial of the French Franciscans to call his most
learned religious together in order to complete the Summa. The
direction of that work was given to William of Melitona. The
latter labored to compose a Summa Virtutum to fill the gap in
the Third Part of Alexander’s work. The result of William’s
effort was never wholly inserted in the Master’s Summa; indeed
William died before he was able to finish it.34
Alexander’s work was not the first Summa.4, The various
3 P. Amédée de Zedelghem, O.M.Cap., “ Doctrine D’Alexandre d’Ales au
sujet du sacrement de Pénitence,” Etudes Franciscaines, XXXVII (1925),
337-338.
4 The Summa Theologiae of Alexander of Hales has been published sev­
eral times. The Quaracchi editors of the works of St. Bonaventure are
publishing a critical edition of Alexander’s Summa, of which Parts One,
Two and Three have appeared. For Part Four we have turned to the
Cologne (1622) Edition. For the sake of convenience, all citations from
Part Four will be accompanied by both the page and the column number.
It should be noted that the Fourth Part of Alexander’s Summa was inter­
rupted midway in his treatise on Penance. It is impossible, pending pub­
lication of Part Four by the Quaracchi editors, to say just which portion
is Alexander’s own work and which portion is to be ascribed to his continuators. Cf. Fulbert Cayré, Précis de Patrologie et d’Histoire de la
Théologie (2a edit.; Paris: Desclée, 1931-1933), t. Il, p. 488.

112 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

collections of Sentences, which preceded his work, were sum­
maries of theology. But the Summa of Alexander was the first
to make use of the physical, metaphysical, and ethical, as well
as the logical treatises of Aristotle. He thus prepared the way
for his better known successors for whom Aristotle was "the
philosopher.”
Alexander was the first of the great thirteenth century Scholas­
tics in point of time. His influence on the leaders who made
that century the golden age of Scholasticism was great. St.
Thomas, for example, followed Alexander’s arrangement and
method very closely when he composed his Summa Theologica.
NATURE OF SATISFACTION

Satisfaction is an act of the virtue of penance/' By it man
makes some return to God for the injustice committed against
God through sin.
Alexander of Hales explains the quiddity of satisfaction by
commenting upon the “ descriptions ” of Gennadius and St.
Anselm.6
Gennadius described satisfaction qs the process of rooting out
the causes of sin and not giving entrance to their suggestions.7
In this he stressed that aspect of satisfaction by which the penitent
recedes from evil. St. Anselm taught that to satisfy is to return
the honor due to God.8 He emphasized the penitent’s approach
to good or the execution of good.
Alexander believes that the description of Gennadius points
to the two essential requirements of satisfaction for committed
sins: the exercise in the works of the virtues and the complete
exclusion of sin. The first is designated by the words : “ to root
out the causes of sins,” and the second by the adjoined phrase:
“ and not to give entrance to their suggestions.v 9
The causes of sins are rooted out when the penitent performs
virtuous acts in the manner in which they should be performed.

i’

5 Summa Theologiae, Pars IV, q. 16, tn. 1, a. 1 (p. 504, 1-2).
e Ibid., q. 24, tn. 3 (p. 643, 2).
7 Cxennadius, De Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus, 54 (PL 58, 994 C).
8 Anselmus, Cur Deus Homo, Lib. I, 11 (PL 158, 377 A).
9 Op. cit., loc. cit. (p. 646, 1-2).

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

113

Entrance is refused to the suggestions of sins when those defects
; by which good works degenerate into sins are excluded from the
actions. xMexander states it as follows :

For entrance to the suggestions of sin is not offered in
the instance when all those defects are excluded by which
works of the virtues are accustomed to degenerate into
sins; on account of which [defects] they are said to be
deficient rather than to be caused ; and their causes are
called deficient and not efficient. For example: if he,
who satisfies for sins by fasting, praying, almsgiving,
fasts, prays, [and] gives alms in such a way that no
defect of sin deforms those acts : such as if they are
performed in that manner and with that intention in
which they ought to be performed: and all things
similarly concur which,arc required: then the causes of
sin are rooted out: and it is fitting satisfaction.10
There are, however, other more evident causes of sin which may
be called the habitual causes. Satisfaction must root them out
also.

Or the causes of sins may be termed habitual, which
would bring on sin, unless they were rooted out : for
excessive drinking of wine brings on drunkenness,
drunkenness impurity : which are to be rooted out by
the opposite works of justice.11
Alexander would not favor a view by which the occasions of sin
would be designated as the causes of sin which must be rooted
out by satisfaction. He views the avoidance of occasions, not
10Ibid.: “Tunc enim non praebetur aditus suggestionibus peccati: quando
omnes illi defectus excluduntur, quibus solent opera virtutum in peccata
degenerare : propter quos magis dicuntur deficere, quam causari : et eorum
causae dicuntur deficientes, et non efficientes. Verbi gratia : si iste, qui
satisfacit pro peccatis, teiunando, orando, eleemosynam dando: ita ieiunat,
orat, eleemosynam dat, quod istos actus nullus defectus deformet peccati :
utpote si fiant eo modo et ea intentione, qua fieri debeant: et alia concur­
rant similiter, quae requiruntur : tunc exciduntur causae peccati : et est
conveniens satisfactio.”
31 Ibid.: “Vel causae peccatorum possunt dici habitualiter, quae peccatum
inducerent, nisi exciderentur : nimia enim vini potatio ebrietatem inducit,
ebrietas luxuriam: quae sunt excidenda per opera justitiae contraria.”

:

114 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
as an element constituting satisfaction, but rather as a means of
facilitating the performance of satisfactory works.

If, however, one would say that the causes of sins are
called occasions: then the expediency of satisfaction
rather than the necessity is noted. For 1 do not see that
in satisfaction the rooting out of the occasions of sin
is necessary: nevertheless it is useful, and in a sense
removes the impediments from one making satisfaction.12
It should not be imagined that to root out the causes of sin
and merely to abstain from further sin are identical, or that one
can make true exterior satisfaction by the mere fleeing of future
sin. Abstinence from sin is rather the foundation of satisfac­
tion. Satisfaction itself is a real punishment of past sins.

[Satisfaction can also be made] in another manner
through the action of good works contrary to sins; and
this is to punish sin and to be cured from sins—accord­
ing as vices are said to be cured by their opposites.13
It is already evident from his comments on the description of
Gennadius that Alexander views satisfaction both as a punish­
ment for past sins and as a medicine to preserve one from future
sins. In the definition of St. Anselm, Alexander points out the
recipient of satisfaction: Almighty God offended by man. The
honor to be returned to God in satisfaction is not the honor due
to Him by reason of so many gifts and graces bestowed upon
man. It is the honor due by reason of the debt of sin. The
injustice of sin is an injustice against God. The honor due in
satisfaction is the debt contracted by that injustice.14
Alexander distinguishes satisfaction into satisfaction in general
and sacramental satisfaction. He also defines, though he does
12 Ibid,.: “Si autem placet dicere, quod causae peccatorum dicuntur occa­

ii

h

siones : tunc magis notatur expeditio satisfactionis, quam necessitas. Non
enim video quod in satisfactione necessaria sit excisio occasionum peccati :
utilis tamen est, et quasi tollens impedimenta satisfaciendi.’’
13 Ibid,, (p. 646, 2): “Alio modo per actionem bonorum operum con­
trariorum peccatis : et hoc est persequi peccatum, et curari a peccatis : pmut
dicitur contraria contrariis curantur.”
Ibid. (p. 647, 1-2).
,

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

115

ilôt' distinguish, what we now term extra-sacramental satisfac­
tion. Satisfaction in general “ is every penal work voluntarily
adopted, whether that to which one is held by the judgment of
God, or by the judgment of the priest.” 15 Sacramental satisfac­
tion, which Alexander calls satisfaction proper, “ is penance
voluntarily adopted at the decision and by the judgment of the
priest.” This particular study begins with satisfaction in gen­
eral, the ^principles of which apply to all satisfaction. Included
in this general concept is the notion of extra-sacramental satis­
faction, which the penitent undertakes of himself “ for the com­
pletion, perfection, and security of satisfaction.” 3<J

f

SATISFACTORY WORKS

The parts of satisfaction or the classes to which all satisfactory
works may be referred are prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. The
terms by which these classes are designated must be understood
neither in the strictest nor in the widest sense, but rather in
their commonly accepted meaning. Thus “ prayer includes every
act of contemplation offered to God, ... all affliction of the "<
flesh is called fasting, . . . almsgiving ... is every work of ’ Λ , . *
kindness, whether spiritual or corporal, performed for one’s neigh­
bor. . . ”17
‘
This threefold classification of satisfactory works is fitting both
because of the triple source of sin shown by St. John18 and
because of the three recipients toward whom all actions may be
directed.
-

i 1
1

1 \
p
I

And then the distinction and sufficiency of these [classes]
appears from this fact; since there is a triple root of sin,
according to which it is said : either the lust of the flesh,
against which works fasting ; or the lust of the eyes, and
against this works almsgiving ; or the pride of life, and
against this stands prayer. Or in another fashion: a
penal work is ordered cither to God, and thus is prayer;
---------------------

15 Ibid., tn. 5, a. 1 (p. 656, 1).
16/bid., m. 2, a. 1 (p. 642, 2).
17 Ibid., q. 25, tn. 1 (p. 666, 1).
« I John 2 :16.

'
;
s ;
s

"
;

£3

A...

116 Sacramental Penance in the Tzaelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
or to ourselves, and thus is fasting which afflicts our
flesh ; or to our neighbor, and thus is almsgiving.19

To this classification Alexander adds by implication another
means of making satisfaction. He points out with St. Augustine
that the willing acceptance of anno varices and temporal afflictions
can be of much value to moral life, either in conquering pride or
in developing patience.19
20
Alexander adds that the works of all three classes are both
satisfactory and medicinal. As satisfactory, the penal work is
the price by which the debt of punishment is paid. As medicinal,
the penal work heals the weakness of soul which is a consequence
of sin.21 The medicinal character of these works, however, is
not effective of spiritual health, since God alone heals the soul
through the infusion of grace. Rather is satisfaction said to be
a medicine of conservation, preservation, and amelioration
strengthening the penitent against relapses into sin.22 It should
be noted that while all three classes are satisfactory in every
case, they do not offer in every case medicine of equal value.
Thus fasting would satisfy for the sin of pride, but its greatest
healing power works against sins of the flesh.
EFFECT OF SATISFACTION

The effect of satisfaction is the remission of the temporal
punishment due to already remitted sins. Thus the penitent is
absolved from the debt of the punishments of purgatory which
are “ incomparably more grave.” 23
A secondary and medicinal effect of satisfaction has already
been suggested in the fact that it procures the complete healing
of the soul.
In common with all good works, works of satisfaction also
merit an increase of glory.24
19 Op. cit., loc. cit.
ibid. (p. 667, 1 ).
24 Ibid., q.23, tn.I, a. 2 (p. 635, 2).
22 Ibid., q.25, m. 1 (p. 666, 2).
23 Ibid., q.16, m. 1, a. 2 (p. 506, 1).
24 ibid., q.24, m. 4, a. 2, n. 3 (p. 650, 2).

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

117

NECESSITY OF SATISFACTION

1
i
I
'
!

j
I
1

'
"

L

- Satisfaction is necessary to secure the remission of the debt of
temporal punishment due to already forgiven sins.
Alexander of Hales begins by considering theoretically the
question as to whether or not the temporal punishment due to sin
must necessarily be forgiven when the guilt (with the eternal
punishment) is remitted. His conclusion is in the negative.25
As a matter of fact, in all remission of mortal sin, the guilt
and the debt of eternal punishment are forgiven simultaneously.
Yet the eternal punishment is not simply forgiven ; rather is it
commuted from eternal to temporal.2"
The facts are these. When man commits a mortal sin, he obliges
himself to eternal punishment ; when God forgives man, He
remits the guilt and eternal punishment, but hinds him to temporal
punishment :
. . . when a sinner sins, he obliges himself to eternal
punishment: when, however, divine mercy justifies him,
it remits all guilt and the debt of eternal punishment,
which clings inseparably to the guilt; but because mercy'
cannot be prejudicial (non potest praejudicare} to justice, to which it pertains to punish evils, accordingly
[mercy] looses from the guilt and punishment in such
a way that he nevertheless remains obliged to some
temporal punishment.27
Alexander states further that a sinner guilty of mortal sin
deserves not only temporal and eternal punishment, but even the
punishment of being reduced to nothingness. The mercy of God
is evidenced in the fact that God does not condemn the sinner
to return to nothingness. Even were it to be supposed that the
sinner merited only eternal punishment, temporal punishment is
justly visited upon him after his justification because he actually
deserved a punishment far greater, namely, the eternal punish­
ment. The truth is that
Summa Theologiae, P. IV, q. 12, m. 4, a. 3 (p. 446, 1).
26 Ibid., q. 14, m. 2, a. 1, n. 3 (p. 468, 2) ; cf. ibid., q. 16, ni. 1, a. 2 (p.
505, 1).
27 Ibid., q. 24, m. 3 (p. 647, 1).

118 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

in the absolution from the debt of eternal punishment he
is obliged to a transitory punishment, either in purgatory,
or in the present life; hence in the absolution from one,
he is bound to the other.28

Contrition may occasionally be so great that it will deliver
from all punishment; otherwise it obtains the remission of only
a part of the punishment.29
The general rule is that a debt of temporal punishment remains
after the guilt and eternal punishment have been remitted. Satis­
faction is necessary to pay that debt in this present life; other­
wise the debt will be exacted in the flames of purgatory.
POSSIBILITY OF SATISFACTION

Man is able to perform satisfaction and thus to secure the
remission of the debt of temporal punishment in this life.
Alexander of Hales offers several foundations for the possi­
bility of satisfaction. First, with divine help, which is certainly
not lacking to any penitent, man can be contrite and can confess ;
therefore he can also make satisfaction. Secondly, since the
penitent is not bound to the necessity of sinning, he can root out
the causes of sin and refuse entrance to their suggestions. Finally,
man can satisfy less merciful man; therefore he can certainly
make satisfaction to God, most merciful.30
The conclusion is that the penitent is able “ to satisfy for his
sin, both by internal and by external work, dependent, however,
on the intervention of divine mercy giving grace.” Alexander
explains this conclusion at length.

There are two elements in mortal sin : aversion from the
highest good, and conversion to changeable (defectibile)
good. To these two elements, however, two others corre­
spond : the offense of God and the pleasure (libido') of
sin ; to which latter two corresponds a twofold infinite
punishment, namely, [that] of loss and of sense; to
those two [elements], however, correspond two elements
in satisfaction on the part of the penitent, perpetual
38 Ibid., q. 17, m. 4, a. 4, n. 2 (p. 537, 1).
29 Ibid. (p. 537, 2).
Summa Theologiae, P. IV, q. 24, m. 1 (p. 641, 1).

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

119

? sorrow for the offense, and the sustaining of exterior
f punishment with divine mercy conferring grace, by which
both are rendered acceptable to God.31

The sinner guilty of mortal sin actually deserves infinite punish­
ment because he has offended the infinite majesty of God. Alex­
ander’s original words are clear :
Quia enim peccator peccando offendit illum, qui est
bonitatis simpliciter, aeternae, et infinitae: oportet quod
in suo infinito et aeterno puniatur, dolendo pro offensa
illa, et detestando.32

Were this infinite punishment to be exacted, the way of satisfac­
tion would be closed to finite man. Fortunately that is not the
case.

In fact, because divine mercy anticipates (praevenit) the
satisfaction of the penitent, by conferring grace, and by
forgiving the infinite debt, it is possible for the penitent
to satisfy by an interior work, sorrowing for the offense,
and by an exterior work for the pleasure (libidine) taken
in the act of sin. And in both of them concur mercy
and justice on the part of God, mercy by forgiving
completely the infinite debt both of the pain of loss and
of the pain of sense ; and justice in demanding some
punishment.33
This infinite debt, which no mere man could pay, was paid by
Jesus Christ, the Mediator of God and man. Only by faith in
His passion can the sinner be justified and sin remitted.
Whence our satisfaction has value wholly from the satis­
faction of Christ, which satisfaction indeed has its effect
31 Ibid. (p. 641, 2) : “In peccato mortali sunt duo; aversio a summo bono,
et conversio ad bonum defectibile. His autem duobus respondent alia duo,
offensa Dei, et libido peccati ; quibus duobus respondet duplex poena in­
finita, scilicet, damni, et sensus ; istis autem duobus respondent duo in
satisfactione ex parte poenitentis, dolor perpetuus dc offensa, et sustinentia
poenae exterioris cum divina misericordia conferente gratiam, qua utrunque
praedictorum efficitur Deo acceptum.”
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.

120 Sacramental Penance in the Tzaelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
in the members of Christ through the sacraments; as
through Baptism it has the fullness of its effect, both in
regard to guilt and in regard to punishment, and through
Penance [it has its effect] in part: therefore ail satis­
faction for sin is founded upon the satisfaction of the
Mediator.34
The fact that temporal punishment remains even after the for­
giveness of the guilt and eternal punishment does not argue an
insufficiency in the passion of Christ. Christ suffered on the
Cross for the sins of all mankind. In Baptism, Christ’s fullness
is applied to the soul without any further requirement. In
Penance, God has willed that we should make satisfaction for
our offenses.35
conditions

The first requisite of satisfaction is that it be acceptable to
God. The works are rendered thus by grace.86On the part of man, two conditions are necessary. Man must
enjoy present life, during which period alone the debt of temporal punishment due to remitted sin can be paid by satisfaction. After the present life, that temporal punishment is exacted
in purgatory. 37
Man must also be in the state of grace. Alexander makes
grace a condition of all penance, which does not exist “ without
gratia gratum faciente or gratis data, and this disposes the pos­
sessor as worthy of pardon.” 38 The devil is incapable of making
satisfaction precisely because he is incapable of receiving grace,
which “is the substratum and principle (raffo) of satisfaction.” 39
Man must satisfy in charity because satisfaction implies the
acceptance of God.40
Ibid. (p. 641, 2; p. 642, 1).
35 Ibid., q. 8, m. 8, a. 2, n. 2 (p. 178, 1).
™ Summa Theologiae, P. IV, q. 24, m. 1 (p. 641, 2); cf. ibid., m. 4,
a. 1 (p, 648, 1).
37 Ibid., q. 17, m. 4, a. 4, n. 2 (p. 537, 1) ; cf. ibid., q. 15, tn. 2, a. 3 (p.
487, 2) ; q. 20, m. 5 (p. 607, 2).
38 Ibid., q. 12, m. 4, a. 2 (p. 445, 1-2).
30 Ibid., q. 24, m. 1 (p. 641, 2).
Ibid., m. 4, a. 2, η. 1 (p. 649, 1). Alexander views gratia gratum

l·

ili

»

I
The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

ί
j ·'
;
j

I
■»

j
■
I

I

121

It can be said that satisfaction (even as regards the term
itself) implies divine acceptance and reconciliation with
God : and since without gratia gratum faciente it is impossible for a person to please God, or for his works to
be accepted : therefore neither is it possible to make satisfaction without charity.41 ·
The most Alexander will allow to a penitent without charity is
that he may prepare himself for the possession of charity and
for the performance of satisfaction.42
Satisfactory works performed in the state of mortal sin are
of no satisfactory value because they are neither acceptable to
God, nor productive of reconciliation with God. Therefore, at
least in the case of sacramental satisfaction, a satisfactory work
performed in the state of mortal sin must be repeated.43
Satisfactory works performed in the state of grace are not
rendered null by a subsequent mortal sin, although they would
be deadened (mortificata) ,44 Upon the return of sanctifying
grace, their value returns. Works of satisfaction performed in
the state of mortal sin are dead from the beginning because they
proceed from a lifeless principle. They are not revivified by
the return of grace or charity, and hence never produce remission
of punishment nor an increase of glory.45
Further conditions are required on the part of the work of
satisfaction. Because a satisfactory work must be acceptable
to God, it is apparent that it must be a good work.
It must be voluntary. Alexander states that both satisfaction
in general and also sacramental satisfaction are characterized by
the essential element of the voluntary assumption of the work.46
It must be supernatural. This condition is not stated in so
many words, but it is implied. Satisfaction is made to God to
atone for the injustice of sin. It must be performed in charity.
faciens as the first of the three principles of works. Works or acts which
proceed from this principle are said to be “ from charity, or in charity.”
“Ibid., a. 1 (p. 648, 1).
“ Ibid.
“Ibid., a. 2, η. 1 (p. 649, 1).
44 Ibid., n. 2 (p. 649, 2).
“Ibid., n. 3 (p. 650, 2).
“Ibid:, m. 5, a. 1 (p· 656, 1).

122 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
Moreover, it is a general principle of Alexander that the will
to do penance or even to do any good cannot be without grace.
It is difficult to decide whether Alexander intends to imply actual
grace or not. But he does state that “ we are not able to will
meritorious or gratuitous good except by the help of grace.” 47
It must be penal, and, in the case of sacramental satisfaction,
external.45 Alexander lists several reasons for the requirement
of a penal work. Ide also notes clearly that the work must be
penal objectively or per sc, and not merely penal to the individual
penitent by reason of the weakness of will induced by his sins.49
VICAR FOUS SATISFACTION

“ One person can make satisfaction for another by reason of
the unity of charity existing among the members of the Mystical
Body of Christ.’' Such vicarious satisfaction, however, is pos­
sible only in so far as satisfaction is a payment of the debt of
temporal punishment. As medicinal, satisfaction must be performed by the penitent himself, because the disease of one person
is not healed through the punishment of another.50
Such vicarious satisfaction may be made only on the authority
of a superior, who must consider the due disposition in the sub­
jects involved and the due proportion in punishment assigned.
The due disposition in thy subjects consists of the “ sufficiency in
the one, and a need in the other, and in both charity, which makes
all goods common.” The due proportion in punishment demands
a greater punishment in the one performing vicarious satisfac­
tion since “one’s own punishment for his sin offers more satisfaction to God than the punishment of another.”51
'
Alexander limits this conclusion in the case of satisfaction
made for another who is still alive. He still demands the “ con­
sent of the keys,” but he adds the further condition that the

|

j

j;
j
1
i
,
*

V'

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century
123'
one for whom satisfaction is to be made must be incapable

i
!

(impotens) of performing it.52

I
I

'

.
sacramental satisfaction

[

Sacramental satisfaction, or satisfaction proper, is “ penance
voluntarily adopted at the decision and judgment of the priest.” 53
As enjoined by the priest possessing the power of the keys, it is
an integral part of the sacrament of Penance.54
The will to make satisfaction is an essential part or element
of true contrition, since Alexander of Hales names it in the defini­
tion of contrition.55 Actual satisfaction, however, is ordinarily
preceded by contrition and confession.50
The sacramental remission of post-baptismal sin according to
the view of Alexander fixes the part of the priest in satisfac­
tion. Alexander holds that God alone can absolve from the
guilt and the eternal punishment of mortal sin. Therefore he
ascribes to contrition the remission of the guilt and the com; mutation of the eternal punishment into temporal punishment.
In confession, by the power of the keys, the priest absolves the
penitent from part of the temporal punishment and assigns satis­
factory penance for the remainder.57
It is true that satisfaction is made primarily to God,
but since the sinnei- offended God, and brought damage
to the Church, the Lord committed judicial power over
sinners to the leaders of the Church, and agreed upon
them as upon judges, so that the will of God might be
made known to penitents through the priests, and through
them penance be imposed upon sinners : and that they
[sinners] might make satisfaction principally to God,
and consequently to the Church.58

Alexander goes on to explain the manner in which the consa Ibid., q.
53 Summa
»4 Ibid., q.
55 Ibid., q.
56 Ibid.
si Ibid., q.
58 Ibid’, q.

24, m. 4, a. 4 (p. 654, 2).
Theologiae, P. IV, q. 24, m. 5, a. 1 (p. 656, 1).
16, m. 1, a. 2 (pp. 504, 2; 506, 1) ; cf. ibid., m. 2 (p. 507, 1).
17, m. 1, a. 3 (p. 510, 1).

16, m. 1, a. 2 (p. 505, 1) ; cf. ibid., q. 20, m. 5 (p. 607, 2).
24,’ m. 3 (p. 647, 1).

124 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
fessor exercises this power given to him by God. The penitent,
freed from the guilt of mortal sin and the debt of eternal punish­
ment due to it, remains bound by a debt of temporal punishment;

. . . that punishment, however, because of the rigour of
divine justice is out of proportion to our strength and
hidden from our knowledge, and it is for that [punish­
ment] that satisfaction must be made to God. There­
fore divine mercy has provided a way for us, and has
constituted the priest a judge, to whom it has given the
power of deciding and enjoining penance, and manifest­
ing it to us, and [power] to remit part of the punish­
ment by virtue of the passion of Christ, so that divine
justice may not demand payment for that part. . .
By the power of the keys the priest absolves from part of the
debt of temporal punishment, and for the remainder he enjoins
satisfactory penance. The penitent must accept the penance
enjoined by the priest, and when he fulfills that penance he is
freed from the debt which would otherwise be exacted in pur­
gatory. If the penitent, however, “ contemns the solution of
that [temporal] punishment, he is rendered guilty of eternal.”
If fulfillment becomes impossible, the penitent will suffer the
incomparably graver pains of purgatory.80
Alexander of Hales implies 4η obligation on the part of the
priest to enjoin a proportioned penance. He interprets the admonition: “ Bring forth fruits befitting repentance,” as a command
to fruitful penance or completed satisfaction. Fruits befitting
repentance are brought forth when the “ quantity and quality
of the punishment in satisfaction correspond to the quantity and
quality of the guilt.” 81
In practice, that proportion of punishment to guilt will be
neither the product of purely arbitrary judgment on the part of
the priest nor the blind application of the canons of penance
handed down. · Rather will a middle position be sought so that
the penances recommended in the canons will be moderated dis­
creetly, according to the decision reached by the priest from a
50 Ibid., q. 21, m. 2, a. 1 (p. 615, 2).
60 Ibid., q. 16, m. 1, a. 2 (p. 506, 1).
ei Ibid.

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

125

consideration of the dispositions and weakness of the penitent.62
Ordinarily satisfaction is to be assigned. Even where the
depth of contrition is so great that it suffices to remove the entire
debt of punishment, satisfaction is still to be enjoined ; the exist­
ence of such contrition usually remains unknown to the penitent
and the priest. If that fact should be known by the priest, “ then
he should not impose penance, but should absolve the absolved.” 63
Whenever the priest assigns satisfactory penance beyond what
is actually due, its fulfillment accumulates merits both for the
penitent making satisfaction and for the treasury of the Church.64
If the priest should assign a penance which is less than condign
and the penitent performs only that penance before death, the
deceased penitent “ without a doubt will pay the remainder in
purgatory.” He is freed only from that debt for which he has
made satisfaction.65
The only case in which Alexander of Hales foresees the cessa­
tion of the priest’s obligation to enjoin penance is in ministra­
tions to those who are too weak or feeble to sustain penalties.
It must be said that, if such be supposed, which either
never or rarely happens, except perhaps in serious and
prolonged ill-health, such laborious works are not to be
imposed upon such persons, but for them perpetual sor­
row and detestation of the sin committed suffices.66

!
j

f
F” ' '

ϊ

Saint Bonaventure (1221-1274)
Saint Bonaventure was born at Bagnorea near Viterbo in 1221.
Tradition reports that he was cured of a serious illness and
imminent death through the intercession of St. Francis of Assisi
(4~1226). Bonaventure may have begun his early education at
the convent in Bagnorea. He went to Paris where he studied
the arts (1236-1242) and received the degree of Master of Arts.
He joined the Franciscans in Paris. Some authorities place his
entrance into the Order of Friars Minor in 1238 and others in
q. 21, m.
Ibid., q. 24, m.
64 Ibid.
65 Ibid., q. 21, m.
Ibid., q. 24, m.

3, a. 1 (p. 618, 1).
3 (p. 647, 1) ; cf. ibid., q. 17, m. 1, a. 3 (p. 510, 1).
3, a. 1 (p. 618, 2).
2, a. 2 (p. 643, 1).

126 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

1243 or 1244. This latter date seems to fit in better with other
known dates and facts in his life.67
In Paris Bonaventure followed the lectures of Alexander of
Hales. In 1248 he began to teach the Scriptures as a Bachelor.
In 1250—1251 Bonaventure began to explain Peter Lombard, in
this instance as a Bachelor of the Sentences. In 1253 he became
a Doctor of Theology, an achievement which earlier opinion placed
in 1257, making both Bonaventure and St. Thomas simultaneous
recipients of the same degree.68
In 1257, most probably on February 2nd, Bonaventure was
elected Minister General of the Friars Minor. He governed the
Order with great success until May 20, 1274. At that time he
was succeeded by Jerome of Ascoli, later Pope Nicholas IV, at
the General Chapter at Lyons.
In 1265 Bonaventure pleaded to be excused from the Archbishopric of York to which Clement IV had appointed him. Yet
eight years later, on May 23, 1273, he was created a Cardinal
and named Bishop of Albano by Gregory X. The same Supreme
Pontiff appointed Bonaventure to prepare the questions to be
discussed at the Fourteenth Ecumenical Council at Lyons which
opened its sessions on May 7, 1274.
Saint Bonaventure died on July 15th, a few weeks after the
work of the Council had gotten under way. He was canonized
by Sixtus IV on April 14, 1482. Sixtus V declared him a Doctor
of the Church on March 14, 1587-1588.
Two of Bonaventure’s written works are of primary interest
to theologians. The first is his Commentarium in Libros Senten­
tiarum, written at the command of his superiors in 1248 when
Bonaventure was only twenty-seven years of age.69 The second
work is the Breviloquium which dates from 1257.
NATURE OF SATISFACTION

Saint Bonaventure sheds a new light on the treatments of
67 E. Longpré, “Bonaventure (Saint),” DHGE, IX (1937) 745
68/bid., 748-749.
69 This Commentary, which is the source used in the present study, oc­
cupies the first four volumes of the Quaracchi critical edition of Bonaven­
ture’s Opera Omnia,

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

I
i
*
;

t
/
!

I
I
I
'
;
1

127

satisfaction which preceded his work by pointing out that the
term satisfaction is used in two senses. On the one hand, satis­
faction identifies the total process of reconciliation with God after
the estrangement of sin ; since all parts of Penance cooperate in
this reconciliation, they are all termed satisfaction or satisfactory. On the other hand, satisfaction connotes the payment of
punishment due; properly it is applied only to one part of Penance,
which is the acceptance or fulfillment of enjoined punishment;
per accidens it is applied also to contrition by reason of the
sensible sorrow accompanying it and to confession because of the
shame involved in it.70 With this caution as an introduction,
the later considerations will be more easily understood.
Satisfaction is an act {pars potestativa') of the virtue of pen­
ance.71 The very notion of complete satisfaction demands two
elements: present amendment for past guilt and the firm resolve
to avoid future guilt. St. Bonaventure is aware of the definition
Of satisfaction given by St. Anselm : “ To satisfy is to return
' the honor due to God.” 72 Yet, in view of the two elements of
satisfaction, Bonaventure prefers to make more extensive use
of the definition of Gennadius : “To satisfy is to root out the
causes of sin and not to allow entrance to their suggestions.” 73
Present amendment for past guilt is best achieved by removing
through sorrow and punishment the sins pursued with delight ;
in that sense, to satisfy is to root out the causes of sin. The
firm resolution against a relapse into sin is expressed in the
denial of entrance to the suggestion of sin.74
70 In IVwn Librum Sententiarum, Dist. XVI, ρ. I, dub. 2, p. 397.
Ibid., dub. 1, p. 397.
72Anselmus, Cur Deus Homo, Lib. I, 11 (PL 158, 377 A).
73 Gennadius, De Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus, 54 (PL 58, 994 C).
74 Op. cit., Dist. XV, ρ. II, a. 1, q. 1, p. 362. The editors of this Quaracchi
edition of St. Bonaventure’s works further clarify the notion of satisfac­
tion. In the Scholion to this question they state : “ Vocabulum satisfac­
tionis, novatoribus saeculi XVI quam maxime odiosum, in genere ad mentem
nostri Doctoris sic definiri potest : est redditio voluntaria aequivalentis alias
indebiti ad compensandam iniuriam. Prout autem specialiter sumitur ut
satisfactio sacramentatis, est actio afiqua poenalis, consistens in bonis
operibus, a sacerdote in Sacramento poenitentiae impositis, ad compensan­
dam aliquatenus solutione poenae temporalis iniuriam Deo per peccatum
illatam.”

128 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
From what has been said, it is apparent that satisfaction must
fulfill the role of punishment and of medicine. St. Bonaventure
adds with St. Anselm that it must return honor to God. As a
result, “ satisfaction is made through penal works.” The reasons
already indicated postulate such a procedure. First of all, by his
sin man has failed in his obligation of honoring God, and accord­
ingly must return that honor in greater measure than would be
required if he had not taken away that honor by his sin. There­
fore, man must not only return to God through good works, but
he must cast himself down through punishment. Besides, the
deordination produced by sin is best readjusted and reordered
through punishment ; the sinner weakened by the heat of sinful
pleasure is cured through the frigidity of a penalty; the debt of
punishment contracted by sin is satisfied through punishment.75
SATISFACTORY WORKS

Prayer, fasting, and almsgiving are the three classes into which
penal or satisfactory works are divided. They form, as it were,
“ the parts of satisfaction.” St, Bonaventure notes that the terms
by which these classes are designated are to be understood neither
in their strictest nor in their widest sense, but in the meaning
accorded them by common usage. Thus prayer includes every
act of contemplation referred to God; fasting includes all afflic­
tion of the flesh ; almsgiving includes every act of kindness toward
one’s neighbor, whether that act be spiritual or corporal.76
EFFECT OF SATISFACTION

The effect of satisfaction performed through these works is
the solution of the debt of temporal punishment and, as a result,
the avoidance of the more painful punishment which would
otherwise be exacted in purgatory. For no one can enter Heaven
with a debt of temporal punishment; that debt must be paid on
earth through satisfaction and absolution, or after this life in the
flames of purgatory.77
75 Ibid., q. 3, p. 365.
76 Ibid., q. 4, p. 368.
77 Ibid., Dist, XX, p. I, a. unicus, q. 1, pp. 517-519.

ii ‘2 f, -

*

' t

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century
’

129

NECESSITY OF SATISFACTION

Satisfaction is necessary because it was preached by St. John
the Baptist and commanded by Christ. St. Bonaventure admits
that the Baptist could not command satisfaction of his own
power. Yet he “ did prescribe it by insinuation and preach­
ing; but Christ commanded it as the principal author, because
John went before and spoke, in the third chapter of St. Matthew,
but the Saviour ratified and instituted, as appears in the fourth
chapter of the same author.” 78
The reason for the necessity of satisfaction is man’s obliga­
tion to atone to God for the injustice of sin. When man commits
a mortal sin, he subjects himself to the bond of eternal punish­
ment. But when Divine Mercy forgives that sin, it forgives and
remits also the eternal punishment which inseparably accompanies
the guilt. Yet, in exercising mercy, God cannot violate His justice
which punishes evil. Hence God forgives the guilt of sin and the
debt of eternal punishment in such a way that the sinner remains
bound by the debt of some temporal punishment.79
POSSIBILITY OF SATISFACTION

This temporal punishment can be remitted through satisfaction.
St. Bonaventure presents several foundations for the possibility
of satisfaction before he offers his doctrine. Since, according
to St. Anselm, to satisfy is to pay back the honor due to Gcrtd,
man is able to satisfy because he is able to return the honor due
to God. In the second place, according to the degree of mercy
in him who is offended, the punishment will be determined ;
since God is most merciful, He will demand less punishment ;
therefore, man, who can make satisfaction to less merciful man,
can surely make satisfaction to God. l·inally, since man can suffer
torment in the measure that his sin brought delight, he can make
satisfaction to God.80
Beyond these preliminary foundations, St. Bonaventure ven­
tures two methods of explaining the possibility of satisfaction to
78 Ibid., Dist. XVI, p. I, dub. 5, p. 398.
™ Ibid., Dist. XV, p. II, a. 1, q. 2, pp. 363-364.
8« In IVum Librum, Dist. XV, p. 1, a. unicus, q. 1, p. 350.

130 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
God. The facts of forgiveness adduced previously in showing
the necessity of satisfaction apply here also; of himself, man
cannot possibly make satisfaction for all the evil of sin; hence
it follows there can be no satisfaction for sin unless some con­
donation of sin precedes it. In the words of St. Bonaventure;

. . . this is one manner of speaking sufficiently probable,
that satisfaction is not made for all that is in sin, because
this is impossible. Whence also God does not demand
satisfaction for all that is in sin, but He condones some­
thing through mercy, He requires satisfaction for the
rest through justice, so that both mercy and truth may
be present; nor is there ever satisfaction, unless con­
donation precedes, just as there is never merit, unless a
gratuitous gift precedes.S1
According to this opinion, God forgives the offense and punishes
the finite inordinate inclination.

Whence be it noted that there are two things in sin,
namely, the offense against God and the inordinate appe­
tite. The offense against God is infinite and satisfaction
is not made for it, but the mercy of God remits it by giv­
ing His grace; the perverse appetite, however, is finite.
And because God is just, He does not remit the whole,
but for that [appetite] He demands condign punish­
ment; in this regard it is possible to make satisfaction
To God.81
82
81 Ibid. : “ Respondeo : Dicendum, quod hic est unus modus dicendi satis
probabilis, quod de omni eo quod est in peccato, non fit satisfactio, quoniam
hoc est impossibile. Unde et Deus non exigit satisfactionem de omni eo
quod est in culpa, sed aliquid condonat per misericordiam, de aliquo requirit
satisfactionem per justitiam, ut simul sit hic misericordia et veritas; nec
utnquam est satisfactio, nisi praecedat condonatio, sicut numquam est meritum, nisi praecedat donum gratuitum.”
82 Ibid.: “Unde notandum, quod in peccato duo sunt, scilicet offensa Dei
et libido deordinata. Offensa Dei est infinita, et pro illa non fit satisfactio,
sed Dei misericordia illam remittit suam dando gratiam ; libido autem
perversa finita est. Et quia Deus justus est, non totum remittit, sed pro
illa exigit poenam condignam; et quantum ad hoc possibile est Deo satisfacere.” It is useful to note that the editors in the Scholion point out that
St. Thomas (Zn Lib. IVum, Dist. XV, q. 1, a. 2, sol., ad lum) argues
against this opinion because the satisfaction does not answer for the sin
except in part.

1
f

I
»
J
j
|

|
1
t
1

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

131

The second opinion, which St. Bonaventure offers as “ suf­
ficiently** probable and reasonable,” is that God indeed forgives
the offense by infusing grace, but He does not so completely
forgive it that He does not demand punishment in justice. Since
man cannot make satisfaction for so great an offense, God gave
to man a Mediator Who would satisfy for the offense. Hence,
all our satisfaction has its value through faith in the Passion of
Christ and its effect through the satisfaction of Christ.

Another manner of speaking is also sufficiently probable
and seems reasonable, that even though the divine mercy
releases the offense by giving grace to man, it does not,
however, in this way so entirely release it that it does
not also demand for the offense satisfaction through
justice. And because man was not able to make satis­
faction for so great an offense, accordingly God gave
to him a Mediator, Who would satisfy for the offense.
Whence only in the faith of the Passion of Christ is all
guilt remitted; for without faith no one is justified; and
according to this fact they say, that all our satisfaction
has value from the satisfaction of Christ.83
The full effect of the Passion of Christ is applied in the sacra­
ment of Baptism; in the sacrament of Penance that effect is only
partial (secundum partem).84
CONDITIONS

The conditions under which man can make satisfaction appear
with great clearness in St. Bonaventure.
>83 Ibid. : “ Alius etiam modus dicendi est satis probabilis et videtur ra­
tionabilis, quod etsi divina misericordia relinquat offensam homini dando
gratiam, non tamen ita omnino relinquit, quin etiam exigat de offensa satis­
factionem per justitiam. Et quia homo non potuit pro tanta offensa
satisfacere, ideo Deus dedit ei Mediatorem, qui satisfaceret pro offensa.
Unde in sola fide passionis Christi remittitur omnis culpa ; sine fide enim
nullus justificatur; et secundum hoc dicunt, quod omnis satisfactio nostra
virtutem habet a satisfactione Christi.”
84 Ibid. The editors also note in the Scholion that while St. Bonaven­
ture does not explicitly reject the first opinion, he docs favor and use the
second opinion throughout his treatment of satisfaction, and he approves
the principles involved in it: namely, that all our satisfaction derives its
value from the satisfaction of Christ, and that our satisfaction is infinite
in so far as it is Christ’s.

132 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
On the part of God, there must be acceptance plus divine
reconciliation and friendship.
Man must enjoy temporal life and the possession of sanctify­
. since without gratia gratum
ing grace and charity, for,
faciens and charity it is impossible that anyone please God and
that his works be accepted, therefore neither is it possible to make
satisfaction ” without gratia gratum faciens and charity.85* As
an introduction to this declaration, St. Bonaventure repeats the
argument now familiar from Peter Lombard. Those who main­
tain that a man can satisfy for one mortal sin while persisting
in another are mistaken. Satisfaction is not the mere enduring
of punishment ; God finds no delight in man's sufferings as such,
but He is pleased by the justice of man’s will and by reconcilia­
tion. These latter, however, postulate for many reasons the
complete removal of all mortal sins at one time. Man cannot
satisfy God while offending Him ; he cannot be at one and the
same time God’s friend and enemy.80
In the case of sacramental satisfaction performed in the state
of mortal sin, Saint Bonaventure admits that the penitent fulfills
the precept of the confessor: “And therefore I say, that when
that enjoined work has been completed, he is not held to repeat
it.” As long, as the penitent has done his best to dispose him­
self, he is absolved in the eyes of the Church and of his own
conscience. Moreover, in the sight of God he would commit no
sin by thus fulfilling his penance in the state of sin.87 Yet the
penitent still owes the debt of temporal punishment which God
will exact at a later time if it is not paid during life.88
The most that St. Bonaventure would allow for satisfactory
works performed without charity is that they might possibly be
revivified when charity returns, but only in so far as they effect
remission of punishment and not with any value meritorious of
85 In IV Librum, Dist. XV, p, I, a. unicus, q. 3, p. 353.
88 Ibid., q. 2, p. 352.
87 The more probable opinion today, as noted in the introductory section,
is that the penitent does fulfill the precept, but by ^filling it in mortal
sin probably sins verbally. (Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis II lib
VI, t. iv, nn. 522-523.)
88 Op. cit., Dist. XV, p. 1, a. unicus, q. 3, ad 3um et 4um, pp. 353-354.

If

H

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

i
■
i
I
;

;
I
..
!

I
p
I
-

I

<■
i
I
)
i

133

eternal life. St. Bonaventure saw this opinion of revivification
as ver}’ probable; nevertheless, he held that to deny any such
revivification was much more secure.89
Man also needs the help of actual grace in order to perform
satisfaction... In a general way, St. Bonaventure holds that man
needs the help of God in order to pay the debt of sin. Man
of himself cannot pay the debt which he contracts by sin because
he renders himself incapable of such action. Yet, being bound
to satisfaction, man “ is not obliged to the impossible ; for,
although it is impossible to him of himself, nevertheless it is
possible to him through divine help.” 90 Unless the mercy of God
comes to the rescue of sinful man, he cannot be saved.
In particular, it may be stated that St. Bonaventure seems to
maintain the necessity of actual grace. Bonaventure explicitly
states that man in the fallen state cannot perform meritorious
works “ without the help of gratia gratum faciens.” 91 At first
glance this statement would seem to signify habitual rather than
actual grace. Yet St. Bonaventure himself states that the gifts
of gratia gratum faciens apply both to habits and to acts of perfection.82 Of even greater value is the observation made by the
Quaracchi editors of St. Bonaventure’s works. Having noted
that the terminology in the field of grace was certainly not fixed
in Bonaventure’s day, they point out that Bonaventure, following
Alexander of Hales, when he speaks about a person in the state
of grace includes not only the theological virtues, but also actual
graces under the single term gratia gratum faciens without any
nominal distinction. But when he speaks about the gifts of
actual grace, and the virtues of faith and hope in the case in
which they are not joined to sanctifying grace, Bonaventure ap­
plies the term gratiae gratis datae?'6 Hence on the authority of
the critical editors, it is at least possible that Bonaventure intended to demand actual grace in the general term gratia gratum
faciens. The tenor of his writing and especially his stress on
88 Ibid., q. 4, p. 355.
90 In Illum Librum, Dist. XX, a. unicus, q. 4, ad 2um, p. 426.
91 In Ilum Librum, Dist. XXVIII, a. 2, q. 3, pp. 689-690.
92 Ibid., Dist. XXIX, a. 3, q. 1, p. 705.
93 Ibid., Dist. XXVI, a. unicus, q. 1, Scholion, p. 632.

134 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
the need of divine help would make it probable that he does so,
St. Bonaventure further implies or explicitly demands certain
conditions on the part of the satisfactory work. That the work
of satisfaction must proceed from the free will of the sinner is
implied by St. Bonaventure; he states that man’s satisfaction
consists not merely in the toleration of punishment, but also and
principally in the justice of his will. Since man cannot make
satisfaction to God by offending God, the satisfactory work
must be good; in fact satisfaction presupposes a good work.94
The satisfactory work must be supernatural, because it must
return the honor due to God and must proceed with the help of
actual grace.
The explicit demand is for the penal character of the satisfac­
tory work. We have seen that St. Bonaventure sees punishment
as essential to the performance of satisfaction and even essential
to the concept of satisfaction. It is useful to note that St. Bona­
venture insists that the penal character of the work must be that
which attaches to the work of its very nature. The possibility
that a satisfactory work may be much more difficult because of
the sins and deordination of will of the person making that satis­
faction, does not necessarily give that work a greater satisfactory
value. Thus it would be more painful to an avaricious sinner
to make a charitable donation of money as alms than it would be
to a generous penitent; that personal difficulty, according to St.
Bonaventure, would not necessarily make the tniser’s alms of
greater satisfactory value.85
VICARIOUS SATISFACTION

The bond of charity existing between the faithful makes pos­
sible satisfaction by one person for another. Vicarious satisfac­
tion in this sense, however, is possible only in so far as satis­
faction is a penalty to pay the debt of temporal punishment. The
transfer of the penalty from one person to another may be made
only upon the authority of the confessor who must verify two
conditions. He must be assured that there is due disposition
present, namely, that the one penitent has the sufficiency from
94 In IVum Librum, Dist. XV, p. II, a. 1, q. 3, p. 365.
55 Ibid., ad 4um, p. 365.

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

135

which to pay the debt and that the other needs the debt paid in
that way. He must also be assured that both penitents possess
charity by which their works become common to each other.
In the second place, the confessor must be certain that there is
due proportion in the penalty assigned. St. Bonaventure holds
that “ one’s own punishment offers greater satisfaction to God
than punishment vicariously sustained by another.” Hence the
confessor must assign a proportionately greater satisfaction to be
performed by the second party.96
In so far as satisfaction is medicinal, it cannot be transferred
from one penitent to another. Punishment cures him alone who
sustains it.9T
SACRAMENTAL SATISFACTION

Thus far we have seen satisfaction in its more general aspects
as an act of the virtue of penance. Now in particular we must
inspect St. Bonaventure’s teaching on sacramental satisfaction.
Satisfaction is an integral part of the sacrament of Penance.98
Together with contrition and confession, it forms the matter of
the sacrament. In the words of St. Bonaventure:

The matter in this sacrament, however, is the humilia­
tion of the penitent either as regards the act of con­
trition, or the word of accusation, or the punishment of
satisfaction."

This text also suggests something confirmed elsewhere, that satis­
faction follows contrition and confession.100
Satisfaction becomes sacramental through the injunction of the
priest-confessor. The facts of forgiveness of mortal sin, namely,
the removal of the guilt and of the accompanying debt of eternal
punishment and the usual persistence of a debt of temporal punish­
ment, apply here also. This debt of temporal punishment must
be paid to God offended by man’s sin. Yet man also brings
Ibid., Dist. XX, p. II, a. unicus, q. 1, pp. 530-531.
87 Ibid.
se In It^um Librum, Dist. XVI, ρ. I, dub. 1, p. 397.
99 Ibid., Dist. XXII, a. 2, q. 2, p. 581.
Ibid., Dist. XX, p. II, a. unicus, q. 1, sol. 4, p. 531.

136 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
damage to the Church of God by his sin. Hence God has com­
mitted into the hands of the leaders of the Church judicial power
over sinnfers. Through His priests God makes known His will
to penitents, and through His priests God imposes punishment
upon sinners. In this way satisfaction is made principally to
God and consequently also to the Church. It is in this sense that
St. Bonaventure declares: “ Satisfaction for sin is properly made
to God Himself, yet through the Church and in the Church.” 31,3
The temporal punishment which is remitted through sacra­
mental satisfaction must be distinguished from the total debt
of temporal punishment which ordinarily remains after the re­
mission of the guilt and debt of eternal punishment. In His
mercy, God has given His priests the power to reduce this total
temporal debt. This total debt of temporal punishment is un­
known to the penitent and, in any case, is out of proportion to
man’s capacity to pay it; hence the priest has power to judge the
case and then to enjoin and manifest to the penitent a certain pun­
ishment through sacramental satisfaction. The remainder of the
total debt he remits by the power of the keys through the merits
of the Passion of Christ. What the priest remits through the
merits of Christ is never again charged against the penitent ; but
for the rest, unless the penitent fulfills the assigned satisfaction
or is punished sufficiently on earth in some way, payment will
be demanded in purgatory.102
The satisfaction assigned by the priest must be proportioned to
the offense; otherwise there will remain the severe punishments
of purgatory. The temporal punishment due to already remitted
sin can be removed through satisfaction; if it is not so removed,
punishment will certainly come in purgatory.
The proportion of satisfaction to the offense will, of course,
vary according to the intensity of contrition. St. Bonaventure
acknowledges that contrition may be so great on occasion that it
will suffice even for the total remission of the debt of temporal
punishment. But since this fact is not evident to the priest, he
must nevertheless impose satisflction. If, however, he were to
be certain that the penitent had made full satisfaction through
101
102

Ibid., Dist. XV, p. II, a. 1, q. 2f pp. 363-364.
ibid., Dist. XVIII, p. I, a. 2, q. 2, p. 477.

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

137

contrition, then he should not impose any penance. But even
in such a case, if the priest, mistaken about the intensity of con­
trition, should assign a penance, the merits of that penance when
performed would accrue to the penitent or add to the treasury
of the Church.103
Since satisfaction is due not only for a punishment of past sin
but also as a preservative against future falls, it must provide a
medicine against sin.104 This medicinal character will best be
fulfilled when opposite punishment is enjoined for sins. Thus
fasting opposes the concupiscence of the flesh, almsgiving coun­
teracts the concupiscence of the eyes, and prayer wars against
the pride of life.103

Saint Albert the Great (cn. 1206-1280)
Saint Albert the Great, Catholic scientist, philosopher, and
theologian, was born about the year 1206 in Lauingen, Swabia,
in Germany. He was the eldest son of the Count of Bollstadt,
and as such was able to pursue his studies at the University of
Padua, known for its cultivation of the liberal arts.
In 1223, Albert joined the Order of Preachers. After complet­
ing his studies, probably at the convent in Cologne, he taught
theology at Cologne, Hildesheim, Freiburg (Breisgau), Ratisbon,
and Strasbourg. There is some confusion about the actual dates
of Albert’s stay in Paris,.though there is no doubt as to the fact
of his presence there. It seems that he may have been sent to
Paris as a Bachelor of the Sentences in 1240/42. He is also
named as the Regent of Saint Jacques ( 1242-1248), one of two
Dominican schools incorporated into the University of Paris. At
Paris also he received his doctoral degree in theology.
In 1248, Albert returned to Cologne as Regent of the new
Studium Generale in that city. He later became Provincial of the
Dominicans in Germany (1254—1257) and Bishop of Ratisbon
(1260—1262). He resigned the latter charge in order to dedicate
himself entirely to study, teaching, and writing.iOS
iOS Ibid., Dist. XV, p. II, a. 1, q. 2, ad 3um, p. 364.
io* Ibid., Dist. XX, p. II, a. unicus, q. 1, p. 530.
ko Ibid., Dist. XV, p. II, a. 1, q. 4, p. 368.

138 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
At the behest of Pope Gregory X, he took an active part in the
deliberations of the Council of Lyons in 1274.
About a year before his death Albert, weakened by constant
labors, suffered a loss of memory. His death came at Cologne on
November 15, 1280.
Albert was beatified by Pope Gregory X\z in 1622. In Septem­
ber, 1872, the German bishops, assembled at Fulda, sent a petition
for his canonization to Rome. His canonization by cult was
recognized by Pope Pius XI on December 16, 1931, when he
declared Saint Albert the Great a Doctor of the Universal Church.
Albert, with Alexander of Hales, pioneered the application of
Aristotelian methods and principles to theological studies. Through
his efforts, the editions of Aristotle were purged of the false
conclusions of Averroism, Rationalism, and Pantheism. Though
he followed Aristotle, Albert gave due recognition to Plato and
St. Augustine. His position is somewhere between Peter Lombard
and St. Thomas, his pupil whose greatness he foretold. His prin• cipal works in theology are his Commentarium in Quattuor Libros
Sententiarum and his Summa Theologiae.L0B
NATURE OF SATISFACTION

Saint Albert the Great treats formally only sacramental satis­
faction. In the course of his writing, however, sufficient indica­
tions may be gathered to form a notion of his view of satisfaction
in general or extra-sacramental satisfaction.
As an act, satisfaction is à kind of justice (species justitiae) 101
In this Albert differs from most of the other theologians, who
viewed satisfaction as an act of the specific virtue of penance.
It may be said in general that Albert views satisfaction as the
means by which nfan pays the debt of temporal punishment due
to his sins even after the remission of The sin and the debt of
eternal punishment.
He offers three definitions of satisfaction. The first is satis100 There have been two editions of the works of St. Albert the Great :
Opera Omnia, 21 vols. (Lyons, 1651); Opera Omnia, 38 vols. (Paris:
Vives, 1890-1899). The Paris Edition, principally vol. 29, is used in this
study.
lor jn /pum Sententiarum, Dist. XVI, a. 13, ad 9um, p.‘ 571,

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

139

faction according to its substance, a definition which applies
equally well to all satisfaction.

!

I
'
’
/
;
'
I
'
1
?

I
!
I

J
j
4
I
?

I
[
[

ί
i

Satisfaction is the compensation of an inflicted damage
or injustice according to the judgment and order of law,
or [according to] the decision of him who suffered the
injustice.108

Satisfaction may also be defined as a part of the sacrament of
’ Penance, which is the medicine of actual sin. In this sense satis- faction is defined as “ the cure of the wound which it achieves
in the one making satisfaction.” Albert adds that this is the
sense in which it is applied and defined in the text of the Senfences. To satisfy is to root out the causes of sin and not to
allow entrance to their suggestions. As such, satisfaction is truly
a remedy, “ for the wound is healed through the fact that the
causes of sins are rooted out and no further entry is allowed to
[their] suggestion.” 109
The third definition points out the recipient and the purpose
or end of satisfaction.

In the third place it is defined in relation to its finis: for
since we can neither hurt nor damage God, by sinning
we take away the honor due to Him: and toward this
end we make satisfaction, that the' honor due to Him
and previously taken away may be restored : and thus
it is defined by Anselm : . . ,110
The reference is to the definition of Saint Anselm which he has

just explained : To satisfy is to return the honor due to God.
Albert explicitly states that the debt of honor to be paid in satis­
faction is a debt flowing from sin.111
These definitions are really applicable to satisfaction in ggperal.
Albert makes no explicit distinction concerning extra-sacramental
io» ibid., Dist. XV, a. 12, p. 487 : “ Dicendum, quod satisfactio tripliciter
potest diffiniri, scilicet secundum substantiam, ut satisfactio sit damni vel
injuriae illatae recompensatio secundum judicium et juris ordinem, vel
arbitrium ejus cui injuria est illata.”
100 Ibid.
no Ibid.
ni Ibid., ad quaestionem 2, ad 2utn, p. 489,

140 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

satisfaction in particular. Later, however, his stress on the special
role of sacramental satisfaction will sufficiently delineate the goal
of extra-sacramental satisfaction.
Even though Albert does not treat of satisfaction in general or
extra-sacramental satisfaction, he is aware of its existence. An
objection to his distinction of sacramental satisfaction from the
other two parts of Penance points out that there is much satis­
faction to be offered through the shame of confession. Albert
answers that the objection “ takes satisfaction in the wide sense
(large') for all punishment which is borne for sins, whether it
be enjoined or not; but satisfaction in its proper sense [as a
part of the sacrament] is not taken for such punishment.” 112
SATISFACTORY WORKS

Satisfactory works, termed by Saint Albert the parts of satis­
faction, are classed under prayer, fasting, and almsgiving.113
He also admits that the painful shame often sustained in the act
of confession may contribute in part to the payment of punish­
ment, but, as will be seen later, this does not make that shame
sacramental satisfaction in the proper sense.334
EFFECT OF SATISFACTION

The principal effect of satisfaction is the removal or payment
of the debt of temporal punishment during the present life, and
the resultant avoidance of the exaction of that debt in purgatory,
where the soul would suffer a much more serious punishment.115
In addition there are the medicinal effects in the curing of the
remains of sin. Saint Albert declares that it is as a medicine
that satisfaction roots out the causes of sin, namely, by rooting
out the inclination aroused through the act and the habit of sin,
the remains of past sin, and the occasions of sin.116
Albert also implies a meritorious effect of satisfaction. He
states that to satisfy is greater than to merit, " because to merit
112a. 13, ad 2um, p. 490; cf. ibid., Dist. XVI, a. 16 ad 17um p 579.
™Ibid., a. 17 et a. 18, pp. 497-499.
Ibid., Dist. XVI, a. 24, p. 594.
115 Ibid., Dist. XV, a. 3, contra 2um, p. 473.
116 Ibid., a. 12, ad lum-ad 7um, pp. 487-488.

141

f

implies only a work worthy (dignum) of eternal life, and to
satisfy implies this plus the payment of punishment due.” 117

'
iy

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

NECESSITY OF SATISFACTION

Satisfaction to God for the injustice wrought by sin always
has been necessary from the natural law. The manner of satisfaction under the New Law (at least with regard to sacramental
satisfaction) was promulgated by John the Baptist and instituted
and confirmed by Jesus Christ when He commanded, “ Repent,
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” 318
Saint Albert admits that Our Lord did not explicitly command
satisfaction, but he holds that Christ did command man to prac­
tice that penance which brings fruits of everlasting life. There­
fore He prescribed complete penance, penance which includes
confession and satisfaction.
This special insistence on the promulgation and institution of
the new manner or mode of satisfaction may demand further
clarification. Albert teaches that the general reason for satisfaction is always the same: sin. He likewise insists that the recipient to whom satisfaction for sin is due remains the same:
Almighty God. The state of the one making satisfaction, however, has not always been the same. Before Christ sinners offered
satisfaction in a manner which prefigured the satisfaction of
Christ; from the time of Christ, sinners are commanded to offer
satisfaction in union with and in imitation of the satisfaction of
Christ.119
In addition to the implicit command of Christ, the facts of sin
and of the remission of sin offer explanation of the necessity
of satisfaction. The underlying principle is the same: the remission of the guilt and eternal punishment of sin does not
necessarily mean the remission of the debt of temporal punish­
ment due to sin.
117 Ibid., a. 10, contra 2, p. 484: “Item, satisfacere plus est quam mereri:
quia mereri non dicit nisi opus dignum vita aeterna, et satisfacere dicit hoc
et solutionem debiti poenae.”
118 In IVum Sent., Dist. XVI, a. 20, ad quaest., p. 586 ; cf. ibid., a. 19,
ad lum, ad 5um, pp. 583, 584.
ne Ibid., a. 19, p. 583.

;
■

;

■·■ ;
T
L
tί
‘ ;
L:
·ΐ

J
J-

ç

;
' >j

Hi
11

142 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

In general, two elements are found in sin : the substance of sin
itself and the state of debt (reatus) which follows upon sin.
The substance of sin (with the debt of eternal punishment) is
remitted by grace alone. The state of debt, which is a debt of
punishment, is removed by the payment of the punishment.120
To become more explicit, contrition (informed by grace) re­
moves the entire guilt and the entire debt of eternal punishment.
It may be so great in intensity that it will remove all the punish­
ment due to sin. Generally, however, it leaves the penitent a
debtor with a debt of temporal punishment.121
This debt of temporal or transitory punishment is termed pur­
gatorial by Saint Albert. By that term he intends no confusion
with the place and pains of temporal punishment to be applied
after the present life. Purgatorial in this case merely indicates
a similarity to those future purgatorial punishments and for two
reasons: (1) this present temporal debt flows from the judg­
ment of God; (2) it is not proportioned to the powers of man.122
Albert’s stress on this similarity points to his teaching on sacra­
mental satisfaction. For the present it suffices to know that
satisfaction is necessary to pay that debt of temporal punishment.
POSSIBILITY OF SATISFACTION

Man is able to make satisfaction by which he pays the debt of
temporal punishment due to his sin. Indeed the satisfaction man
offers is not equal in justice to the injustice he inflicts against
the infinite majesty of God. But man can perform the satisfac­
tion which God demands. Albert states :

that there is a two-fold satisfaction, namely, according to
the equality of law, and according to the decision of
him upon whom the injustice is inflicted. It does not
happen that satisfaction can be made to God in accord­
ance with the first by any pure creature: but in ac­
cordance with the second it does happen, because that
can be paid to God for sin which Ide demands of us.123
120 Ibid.,
121 Ibid.,
122 Ibid.,
Ibid.,

Dist.
Dist.
Dist.
Dist.

XV, a. 4, ad quaest. 3, ad lum p 475
XVI, a. 31, p. 613.
XVIII, a. 11, ad lum, p. 784.
XV, a. 11, pp. 485-486: “Dicendum, quod duplex est satis-

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

143

All of man’s satisfaction draws its value from the satisfaction
of Christ. The debt of sin is greater than man can pay. Christ
has paid what would otherwise exceed the power of man even
aided by grace. By the merits of Christ, man is able to make
satisfaction for the debt which remains.124125This fact is par­
ticularly evident in the case of sacramental satisfaction. The
■ parts of Penance so apply the merits of Christ to penitents that
the debt can be paid by them, again in union with Christ’s merits.
Albert adds explicitly that Saint Ambrose, Saint Anselm, and
Peter Lombard had shown
that no penance of ours would suffice, unless the merit
of Christ were supporting [it] : there is, however, no
reason why our penance does not suffice, except that we
are debtors of more than we can pay: and this is the
disproportion of the power to pay in us : and Christ
paid this for us: therefore . . . the Passion of Christ
which is operative in the keys, has effect against that
measure of punishment which exceeds our strength.123
CONDITIONS

The first condition of all satisfaction is the acceptance of God.
This means that satisfaction must be made according to the divine
will and acceptance.126
In order to satisfy, man needs the present life and the state of
grace. As long as this life continues there is place for correc­
tion and for penance; after this life the time of satisfaction is
closed.127
factio, scilicet secundum aequale juris, et secundum arbitrium ejus cui facta
est injuria. De prima satisfactione non contingit satisfacere Deo ab aliqua
creatura pura : sed de secunda contingit, quia contingit Deo solvere pro
peccato quod exigit a nobis.” Cf. ibid., Dist. XVI, a. 20, p. 585.
ia* Ibid., Dist. XVI, a. 19, p. 583 ; cf. ibid., a. 16, ad 17um, p. 579.
125 Ibid., Dist. XVIII, a. 11, ratio 4, pp. 783-784: “. . . quod nulla poeni­
tentia nostra sufficeret, nisi esset meritum Christi coadjuvans : quod autem
non sufficit poenitentia nostra, nulla causa est nisi quod majoris quam sol­
vere possumus debitores sumus : et haec est improportio potentiae solvendi
in nobis : et hoc pro nobis solvit Christus : ergo . . . passio Christi quae
in clavibus operatur, habet effectum contra illum modum poenae, qui excedit
vires nostras.” Cf. ibid., rationes 1-3, p. 783.
125 In IVum Sent., Dist. XV, a. 10, p. 484.
127 Ibid., a. 4, quaestio 5, 2 ; ad quaestionem 5, pp. 475, 476.

144 Sacramental Penance tn the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
Man also needs the state of grace and charity in order to satisfy.
In the first place, Albert brands as false and condemns as con­
trary to faith the opinion which would hold that man can satisfy
for one sin while clinging to another.12'1' Moreover, Christ has
no communication with the devil and hence no communication
with the soul in which the devil dwells. The soul in mortal sin,
however, is the dwelling place of the devil ; hence Christ has
no communication with such a soul. Since Christ accepts no
satisfaction except from a soul with whom He is joined in grace,
He will not accept the satisfaction of a soul remaining in mortal
sin.129
The passage just cited refers to all acts of penance. .Albert
repeats the principle as applicable to satisfaction in particular.
He asks the question: Does the penitent making satisiaction need
gratia gratum faciens in order to satisfy/ His answer is force­
ful and clear :

This question was almost determined, where it was asked
concerning works performed without charity, whether
they could be works of penance: and therefore what was
answered there is supposed here, namely, that works of
penance, just as other works in which the pleasure
{placatio) of God is sought, be performed according to
the divine will and acceptance; the acceptance of God,
however, is not in us of ourselves, nor in our work of
ourselves or of our work, but rather from that which
we have received from Him: and that is gratum faciens:
and therefore such works must be performed in gratia
gratum facienti.130

The necessity of grace for satisfaction is apparent also from the
fact that man must be pleasing to God in order to secure the
remission of the temporal punishment due to his sin.131
Grace is likewise necessary for the performance of assigned
sacramental satisfaction. Albert admits, however, that where a
penitent fulfills the sacramental satisfaction enjoined upon him,
™>Ibid.,
120 Ibid..,
130 Ibid.,
131 Ibid.,

J
s

a. 1, p. 471.
Sed Contra, 1, p. 470.
a. 10, p. 484; cf. ibid., Sed Contra, 1-2; a. 11, ad 3um p. 486.
a. 9, p. 481 ; cf. ibid., a. 35, p. 521.

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

1

I
;
1
i
I
;
I
I
>
'
I
’

fulfills it, that is, while in the state of mortal sin, “ he need not
perforin it again after he has repented.” Such a penitent frees
himself from the obligation placed upon him by the priest;
quantitatively he pays the debt of punishment. Such a one,
however, does not make satisfaction: "because payment regards
only the quantity of the debt, but satisfaction regards this [quan■ tity], and further affirms that it be performed according to the
will of him to whom it is made.” Hence even though the penitent
in such a case need not repeat the previously assigned satisfaction, “nevertheless he must be sorry/ and confess, and make
' satisfaction for the fact that he did not perform the enjoined
[penance] in that manner in which he should have [performed
it].”132
t
Albert the Great admits the revival of sacramental satisfaction
performed by a penitent in the state of mortal sin, but only in
those cases in which the satisfactory works leave an effect in the
- penitent. Other works which pass away as soon as they are
completed do not revive; therefore the debt of temporal punish­
ment remains and satisfaction must be made for it. Albert makes
. his distinction concerning satisfactory works in these words:
... there are certain exterior works, which through
loss (damnum) and affliction remain in the performer
after they have been completed, such as the giving of
alms, and pilgrimage, and the like ; certain ones, however, completely pass away, such as prayer, and other
similar works. Therefore 1 say, that works which ιο­
main in some measure (modo), revive afterwards
through grace: and those need not be repeated: but
others must be repeated.133

:
i
I
’
[
ί
£
I

>

145

i
ti

There are conditions on the part of the work offered as satisfaction also. Satisfaction must be free or voluntary, because
“punishment purges sin in so far as it is voluntarily assumed
for sin.” 134 Moreover, Albert distinguishes between satisfac­
tion in this life and purgation in purgatory by pointing out the

I'
y
,

Ibid~
ibid., a. 30, p. 514; cf. ibid., Dist. XIV, a. 20, p. 440; a. 21, pp. 441-442.
134 /bid., a. 4, ad quaestionem 3, ad 2um, p. 476; cf. ibid., a. 3, ad 2utn,
p. 473.
133

146 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

former as simpliciter voluntary and the latter as conditionally
voluntary.135*
From what has been said, it likewise follows that the satisfac­
tory work must be a good work : for it must be pleasing to God.
Its supernatural character seems to follow from the fact that
it is directed to repair the injustice committed against God, and
that it depends for its value upon the support of the merits of
Christ. Numerous instances of satisfaction as a punishment
point to the penal character of the satisfactory work. Albert
explicitly points out that the three parts of satisfaction are dis­
tinct, “ although they share one thing in common, which is a penal
aspect (esse poenale').” 13li
SACRAMENTAL SATISFACTION

The parts of the sacrament of Penance arc contrition, confes­
sion, and satisfaction.137 Saint Albert proves their necessity by
a consideration of the facts of sin and the role played by these
parts in the remission of sin.
Penance is a sacrament directed to the total destruction of
• actual sin : “ the actual disease, however, is not only the guilt,
but also the debt (reatus) following the guilt, and the difficulty
toward good generated from the habit and dispositions of sin.”
The debt which follows sin is a debt of punishment which is
three-fold : the debt of eternal punishment, the debt of disproportioned temporal punishment, the debt of proportioned temporal
punishment. In Albert’s own terms :
The consequent debt, however, is three-fold : for one is
joined to the guilt, which is the debt of eternal punish­
ment : and when that is loosed there still remains the
debt of purgatorial punishment disproportioned to the
powers of the penitent. When the latter is remitted,
there again remains the debt of expiatory punishment
iletermmed according to the measure of guilt and the
powers of the penitent. When this last has been re135 Ibid., Dist. XXI, a. 7, et ad lum, p. 871.
i33 Ibid., Dist. XV, a. 18, p. 498.
ia?Il/um Sent., Dist. XVI, a. 2, pp. 542-543; a. 44, ad lum p 634;
Dist. XVII, a. 1, p. 660 ; Dist. XXII, a. 5, p. 893.

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

147

mitted, however, there remains no debt, but the difficulty
in doing good can still remain.

1
’

i
r
{

I
I
/
h

The three parts of Penance {partes potestativae') are required for
the total destruction of sin and hence for the perfection of
Penance.

But in order to remove this entire disease of sin I say
that three things are required, namely, contrition remitting the first, confession remitting the second, and
satisfaction remitting the third: the difficulty [toward
good], however, is removed by the habit of good in all
these [three]. And thus it is clear that the power of
Penance is perfected in these three, and without these
three it is not perfect.138
Lest it be concluded that all three parts of Penance fulfill the
particular role of satisfaction, Saint Albert clearly distinguishes
sacramental satisfaction from contrition and confession. In rela­
tion to the sacrament of Penance,
not everything which in some measure looses the guilt
or the punishment due to the guilt is here-called satis­
faction, but only that [punishment] which is enjoined
and determined by the power of the keys and through
the decision of the priest ; for that punishment is sim­
pliciter voluntary and enjoined according to the quantity
of the crime. But in contrition and confession, there
are punishments, namely, sorrow in contrition and shame
in confession, which are punishments from corrupt na­
ture inflicted for sin, [and which] are neither deter­
mined, nor limited to a definite time, but [which], as
long as discreet and reasonable submission is present,
increase in value according as they are greater. There­
fore although sin is expiated through them, nevertheless
they are not properly satisfactory according to the judg­
ment and decision of the confessional forum.139

Therefore contrition (informed by grace) removes the guilt
and eternal punishment due to sin. The power of the keys as
iss ibid., Dist. XVI, a. 2, pp. 542-543; cf. ibid., a. 12, ad 3um, p. 567;
Dist. XXII, a. 6, p. 895.
«ο ibid., Dist. XV, a, 13, p. 489.

148 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

applied in confession changes the debt of disproportioned purga­
torial punishment to an expiatory punishment proportioned to
the powers of the penitent and assigns that determined punish­
ment to be paid through sacramental satisfaction. Sacramental
satisfaction is required to pay this debt of determined and en­
joined temporal punishment.140
Satisfaction in voto is always required for the forgiveness of
sin, even in those cases in which actual satisfaction is impossible.
Albert distinguishes a two-fold action of the parts of Penance:
in virtute and in essentia. Then he continues concerning the
necessity of contrition, confession, and satisfaction:
And it is indeed true, that those three are not always
required essentialiter for the remission of every sin even
singly accepted: whence contrition in virtue of itself
alone does not remit sin, but as it is joined with the
votwn of confession and satisfaction : and then confes­
sion and satisfaction are present in virtute and not in
essentia; and this suffices when a moment of necessity
and not contempt of religion excludes the sacrament.J4]
Actual satisfaction, as is evident from Albert’s teaching, sup­
poses contrition and confession.142 Indeed confession “ is made
to the minister of the Church, in order that he may know how
great and what is the guilt, [and] that thus he may enjoin due
punishment.” 143
Saint Albert’s very notion of sacramental satisfaction includes
the injunction of proportioned punishment. He expressly states
that fruits worthy of penance are those in which the quality and
quantity of the punishment are proportioned to the quality and
quantity of the sin.144
The quantity of the sin is to be discovered by weighing the
seriousness of each sin and the total number of sins, and also
the circumstances of the sinner and of the act which may make
li0 Ibid., Dist. XVIII, rationes 1-4, p. 783; cf. ibid., Dist. XVI, a. 16, ad
17um, p. 579; Dist. XVII, a. 24, p. 693; a. 28, p. 697.
141 Ibid., Dist. XV, a. 40, ad 2um, p. 527.
142 Ibid., Dist. XVI, a. 4, ad 5um, p. 546.
148 Ibid., Dist. XV, a. 9, p. 481; cf. ibid., Dist. XVI, a. 12, ad quaesi,
ad 5um, p. 569.
144 Ibid., Dist. XVI, a. 21, p. 587.

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

149

a sin grave.143 The quality of the sin is discovered from its type
whence it will be carnal or spiritual or a combination of both.346
Hence the rule calls for a greater punishment for a greater
guilt. The penance assigned should also be proportioned to the
quality or kind of sin, so that the work of satisfaction enjoined
is contrary to the vice which induced the most dangerous occa­
sion of sin in the penitent. Thus, fasting should be enjoined
on the lascivious, prayer on the proud, and almsgiving on the
miserly.147 Tn this way satisfaction fulfills its medicinal as well
as its penal aspect.
Besides weighing the quantity and quality of the sin, the priest
must also consider the state of the penitent. The fruits worthy
of penance will be different for a cleric, a prelate, a subject.146
The priest as confessor, therefore, is not bound to enjoin the
penance in absolute correspondence with the canon of penance
- or the quality of the crime. Rather should he consider the canon
as a rule for enjoining penance, "but the proportion of this rule
’. to this penitent or that is left to the decision of the prudent
. .. priest.” 149 Just as a physician adapts the rules of his medical
'
books, so the priest adapts the rules of penance to each penitent.
Albert would also include the depth of contrition as a point of
consideration in weighing the state of the penitent. He adds
this in a text -which summarizes his entire view of proportioned
satisfaction. In addition to the quantity of the crime the priest
must note the quality of the sin, the depth of contrition, and the
state of the penitent.130
Albert’s stress on the necessity of sacramental satisfaction
implies that the penitent should accept and fulfil the penance
enjoined by the priest. Such is certainly true in regard to ac­
ceptance: for the willing assumption of the enjoined penance
by the penitent is made a sign of true contrition.151
145 Ibid., ad quaestionem 1, p. 588.
140 Ibid., ad lum et ad 2um, p. 587; ad quaestionem 2, p. 588.
347 Ibid., Dist. XV, a. 12, ad 7um, p. 488; Dist. XVI, a. 21, ad lum et
2um, pp. 587-588.
Ibid., Dist. XVI, a. 21, p. 587.
149 Ibid,, a. 45, pp. 635-636.
Ibid., Dist. XX, a. 14, p. 845.
3 51 Ibid., Dist. XV, a. 36, ad questionem 2, ad 3um, p. 524.

150 Sacramental Penance in the Tzvelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
The necessity of confession and satisfaction except in case of
impossibility has already been mentioned. Albert here limits that
necessity to cases of mortal sin. The rules of Penance, accord­
ing as Penance is “ integrated and constituted by contrition, con­
fession, and satisfaction . . .” always apply to mortal sin, but
not to venial sin :

because in mortal sin is demanded confession with the
listing of the aggravating circumstances, and with en­
joined satisfaction, none of which is required in penance
for venial sins, but only sorrow with daily satisfaction?52
The notable exception to the rule of enjoined satisfaction is
the case of the dying. The priest should not enjoin, but he should
make known the satisfaction due in order that the sick man may
know the quantity of his guilt and be more deeply contrite. At
the same time the priest should encourage the penitent with the
recollection of the mercy of God Who forgives with equal facility
many sins or few; thus he will preserve the dying man from
despair.153
Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

Thomas Aquinas was born at Rocca Secca near Naples, prob­
ably in the early part of the year 1225. Landulph, his father,
was Count of Aquino and Theodora, his mother, was Countess
of Teano. The family was thus rich in royal ties.
Shortly after reaching his fifth year, Thomas was sent to the
Benedictine monks at Monte Cassino to begin his schooling. So
great was his prowess that he was later sent, on the advice of
the Abbot, to the University of Naples to. study philosophy.
Some time between 1240 and 1244 Thomas entered the Order
of Preachers. The story of his family’s opposition and attempts
to weaken his resolve is well known.
Thomas is reported to have arrived in Cologne to study in
1244 or 1245. He was certainly in Paris studying in the latter
year. In 1248, when St. Albert the Great was transferred to
«a Ibid., Dist. XVI, a. 47, p. 641.
«a Ibid., Dist. XX, a. 15, p. 847.

I
j
;
ξ
A
1

)
/
I
I

I
!
'

,

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

151

Cologne as the Regent of the new Dominican Studium Generale,
Thomas accompanied his professor. He himself was assigned to
teach in Cologne as a Bachelor. In 1250, Thomas was ordained
to the sacred priesthood by Conrad of Hochstaden, Archbishop
of Cologne.
The public career of Thomas Aquinas really began in 1251 or
1252 when he was appointed Sub-regent of the Dominican
v Studium in Paris. His lectures, principally explanatory of the
Sentences of Peter Lombard, soon attracted both professors and
students. Until recent years, tradition had maintained that St.
Thomas and St. Bonaventure received the doctorate in theology
together on October 23, 1257. But later scholarship has indicated
that St. Bonaventure attained his degree in 1253.104
From this point the life of Thomas was one of constant prayer
and labor. His teaching assignments took him at various times
to Anagni, Orvieto, Bologna, Perugia, Rome, Viterbo, back to
Paris, and finally to Naples to found a Studium Generate there.
During these years of teaching he succeeded in declining the
Archbishopric of Naples to which Clement IV had appointed him
in 1265.Z
He ceased writing on December 6, 1273, after an unusually
long ecstasy during Holy Mass. At the time he had completed
his Summa Theologica only as far as the ninetieth question of
the Third Part.
Invited by Pope Gregory X to the General Council at Lyons,
Thomas tried to summon his strength for the journey. He set
out in January, 1274, but fell sick on the way near Terracina.
His death came at the Cistercian Monastery in Fossa Nuova on
March 7, 1274.
Pope John XXII canonized Thomas on July 18, 1323. Pope
St. Pius V, in 1567, proclaimed St. Thomas a Doctor of the
Universal Church. In 1880, Pope Leo XIII designated St.
Thomas the patron of Catholic universities, colleges, academies,
and schools.
The most famous of all the writings of St. Thomas is the
Summa Theologica. But since St. Thomas did not complete his
*54 E. Longpré, “Bonaventure (Saint),” DHGE, IX (1937), 748-749.

ÿîij

152 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

treatment of the sacrament of Penance in the Third Part, it will
be useful to refer to his Commentary on the Pour Books of Sen­
tences. In that we will be following a precedent established by
those who compiled the Supplement to the Summa.
NATURE OF SATISFACTION

Penance is a virtue which has as its special purpose to satisfy
for committed personal sin. As a virtue, penance is specified
by the consideration of sin as detestable and as capable of expia­
tion through penance?55 Hence its object is committed personal
sin which it intends to expiate. The end of penance, however,
is God with Whom it intends reconciliation?56
Penance is a moral virtue because it follows a mean—the equality
of proportion to be restored between the offender and the one
offended. It does not punish some sins and allow others to go
unpunished. But for each sin penance inflicts on the offender
the punishment due for the offense he has committed. Thus, in
some sense, the one offended has previously had something taken
away from him by the offense ; in penance he has that something
restored while the offender gives up what he has indulged himself
in the offense?®7
From what has been said it follows that penance pertains to
vindictive justice. Between God and man, because the distance
is infinite, there cannot be any strict equality of justice, but there
is some mode (modus) of justice according to similarity. Man
becomes God’s debtor by sinning. Man pays that debt through
penance. His payment does not equalize the preceding offense
exactly, but it is what he can do. Hence penance, while not a
species of justice, is a potential part of justice?58
While both penance and vindictive justice are in some way
concerned with the same task, namely, the punishment of an
offense, they differ in two respects. Vindictive justice is properly
found in the judge who inflicts the penalty which is sometimes
155 hi Librum IVum Sententiarum, Dist. XIV, q. 1, a. 1, sol. 3.
15G Ibid., sol. 4.
157 Ibid., ad 4um.
188 Ibid., sol. 5.

i

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century
153
unwillingly received by the guilty party. Penance resides in the

(

1
I
I

guilty person himself who voluntarily sustains punishment for
the. committed guilt. In the second place, vindictive justice deals
with offenses in general. The virtue of penance deals only with
an offense against God. Therefore penance must consist in the
voluntarily assumed emendation of the offense and be such as
is fitting to God.150
Because God sees the heart of the offender as well as his ex­
terior, penance must begin in the heart. External recompense
for a preceding offense can well be made through the acceptance
and the suffering of punishment for the offense and the avoid­
ance of a relapse into the offense. In the case of an offense
against God this recompense must begin in the heart through
sorrow for the offense committed and the firm resolution to avoid
repeating its commission in the future.100
St. Thomas views satisfaction as an act of the virtue of penance.
Being an act of penance, satisfaction is therefore a work of jus­
tice. Ordinarily justice aims at the equality of one thing to
another according to some certain proportion. As the term itself
signifies, satisfaction indicates the equality of proportion and
therefore certainly pertains to justice.161
Sometimes justice, administered through a judge, sets up the
equality between two individuals ; but justice as secured in satis­
faction sets up the equality in the performer of satisfaction. This
equality may be secured in regard to exterior things, and as such
is exemplified by restitution. It may, however, be concerned with
actions, and thus properly is the field of satisfaction.
Because satisfaction sets up equality in regard to actions, it
presupposes the inequality of actions which constitutes the of­
fense or injustice. Hence satisfaction looks to a preceding offense.
The fact that satisfaction looks toward that preceding offense
stamps it as a work of vindictive justice, which alone regards the
past.
All this is aptly summed up in the definition which St. Thomas

154 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
offers :
. . satisfaction is a certain recompense of an inflicted
injustice.” 162
Justice does not merely remove the preceding inequality by
punishing the preceding fault (culpam), but it tends also to
preserve that equality in the future: for, according to Aristotle,
punishments are medicines. From this it follows that satisfac­
tion, which is an act of justice inflicting punishment, is a medi­
cine curing past sins and preserving from future sins.163
Having declared these two aspects of satisfaction, St. Thomas
proceeds to approve the definitions of satisfaction given by St.
Anselm and Gennadius. In regai’d to the preceding fault which
it cures by compensating for it, satisfaction “is the recompense
of an inflicted injustice according to the equality of justice.”
This is what St. Anselm taught when he stated that to satisfy
is to return the honor due to God, that is, the honor due by
reason of the preceding offense. Satisfaction may also be defined
with special emphasis on preservation from future guilt. In this
sense Gennadius held that satisfaction is to root out the causes
of sin and to deny entrance to their suggestions. By rooting
out the causes of sin, satisfaction removes the proximate sources
of sin; by closing the heart to suggestions of sin, satisfaction
secures the power of free will against sin.164
SATISFACTORY WORKS

Because satisfaction both makes recompense for a past offense
and also preserves from future guilt, it must be made through
penal works. The recompense for the offense implies an equaliza­
tion to be made by the offender toward the one offended. On
the human plane this equality of justice is attained by subtract­
ing from the offender who has more than is just and by adding
to the one offended from whom something has been previously
taken. Now it is certain that God, on His part, cannot suffer
any subtraction as a result of man’s dealings with God; yet the
sinner, so far as in him lies, does take something away from
162 Ibid., sol. 2, ad lutn: “. . . satisfactio . . , est quaedam injuriae illatae
recompensatio.”
ies Ibid., sol. 3.
104 Ibid.

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

155

God by sinning. In order that recompense may be made for this
subtraction, something must be taken away from the sinner
through satisfaction, which procures the honor of God. A good
work, as such, would not take something away from a sinner,
. but would rather perfect him ; hence a good work cannot pro..· vide the satisfaction, unless it be penal. Hence a satisfactory
work as good is in honor of God, as penal it subtracts something
. from the sinner. On the preservative side, the sinner is not so
likely to return to sins from which he has suffered punishment.1*35
The trials of life which God sends or allows to come to men
can be satisfactory if those trials become in some way the trials
of him who suffers them, if he accepts them intending the purga­
tion of his sins, and if he sustains them patiently.16*3
Ordinarily, however, there are three classes of works through
which man can offer satisfaction, three classes which correspond
to the three classes of goods which man can subtract from himself
in honor of God : goods of the soul, goods of the body, and
goods of fortune. From goods of fortune man can make satis­
faction through almsgiving ; from corporal goods he can satisfy
through fasting; from goods of the soul, while he does not sub­
tract anything from himself, man satisfies by submitting them
totally to God through prayer.1*37
EFFECT OF SATISFACTION

Satisfaction performed through these three classes of satisfac­
tory vfrorks achieves the remission of the temporal punishment
due to already forgiven sin. Once again it is declared to be the
means of avoiding purgatory, where the unpaid debt of temporal
punishment would otherwise be exacted in much more painful
torments.168
St. Thomas has already indicated that satisfaction likewise has
a medicinal effect in so far as it cures past sins and preserves
from future sins.
i«5 Ibid.,
ιθθ Ibid.,
Ibid.,
ice ibid.,

Dist. XV, q. 1, a. 4, sol. 1.
sol. 2.
sol. 3.
Dist. XXI, q. 1, a. 1, sol. 1.

156 Sacramental Penance in the Tzvelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
NECESSITY OF SATISFACTION

It can he inferred from what has been seen of the doctrine of
St. Thomas that satisfaction is necessary both as a punishment
of previous sin and as a preservative medicine against future
falls. But St. Thomas explicitly states that the command of God
is the source of the necessity of satisfaction: Bring forth fruits
befitting repentance.169
The basis for the necessity of satisfaction, however, is the
persistence of a debt of temporal punishment even after the re­
mission of the guilt of sin and of the debt of eternal punishment.
This persistence does not argue any deficiency in the merits of
Christ. For in the sacrament of regeneration, in which the full
force of Christ’s death is applied to the soul, all debts of sin
are removed.

. . . Christ through His death satisfied sufficiently for
the sins of the entire human race even though they
should be much more numerous, And because man
through Baptism is baptized into the death of Christ,
and dies and is buried with Him, as stated in the sixth
chapter of Romans, accordingly Baptism, on its part,
applies the whole efficacy of the passion to the one bap­
tized ; ana on this account it absolves not only from the
guilt, but also from satisfactory punishment.170
In the sacrament of Penance, however, the sinner participates
in the value of the passion of Christ according to his own acts
which are the matter of Penance. Accordingly the debt of punish­
ment is not entirely loosed by the very first act of Penance, which
indeed is able to achieve the remission of guilt, but only with the
completion of all the acts of Penance.171 Baptism is a spiritual
regeneration of man. Penance, however, is not a regeneration,
but rather a reparation of a life previously possessed.172 In that
reparation of spiritual life man, who destroyed it by the com­
mission of sin, must cooperate.173
109 Ibid., Dist. XV, q. 1, a. 2.
170 Ibid., Dist. IV, q. 2, a. 1, sol. 2.
m Summa Theologica, III, q. 86, a, 4, ad 3um ; cf. In Librum IVum,
Dist. XIV, q. 2, a. 1, sol. 3.
172 In Librum IVum, Dist. XIV, q. 2, a. 1, sol. 2, ad 3um '
ira ibid., Dist. XVII, q. 3, a. 1, sol. 1, ad 3um.

I; Γ

1

:

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

157

The persistence of temporal punishment even after the remis­
sion of guilt and of eternal punishment receives its classic ex­
planation from St. Thomas. In every mortal sin there are two
elements : aversion from the unchangeable good and the inordinate
conversion to some changeable good. To the aversion from the
unchangeable good or God a debt of eternal punishment corre­
sponds, “ in order that he who has sinned against the eternal
good may be eternally punished.” From the conversion to change­
able good, in so far as it is inordinate, there flows a debt of
some other punishment, because the deordination of guilt is only
reduced to the order of justice through punishment. It is not,
however, a debt of eternal punishment, because the conversion is
only finite. This latter fact accounts for the single debt of
temporal punishment in the case of venial sin in which there is
no aversion from God.
When grace removes the guilt of mortal sin, it removes the
aversion from God inherent in that sin by joining the soul to
God. Consequently grace also removes the debt of eternal punish­
ment due to that aversion. But such grace does not necessarily
remove the punishment corresponding to the inordinate conver­
sion to changeable good. Hence a debt of temporal punishment
can and does remain even after such forgiveness.174
Satisfaction is the means at the sinner’s disposal for remitting
that debt of temporal punishment.
POSSIBILITY OF SATISFACTION

The sinner can make satisfaction to God and thus pay the debt
which he has contracted by reason of the sin committed. If
satisfaction were to imply the absolute equality of quantity, so
that the punishment undergone would absolutely equal the offense
previously committed, man would not be able to satisfy. But
since satisfaction demands only an equality of proportion, man
is able to make satisfaction. The case is not strange either. Man
is also a debtor to God for the gifts he has received from God.
In offering worship and thanksgiving to God, man cannot offer
Summa Theologica, III, q. 86, a. 4; ibid., ad lum; cf. In Librum
IVum, Dist. XIV, q. 2, a. 1, sol. 2.

158 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

ί

a quantity exactly equivalent to the benefits received from God.
But it is sufficient that man do what he can : friendship only
demands an equivalent according to what is possible. That same
notion applies to satisfaction.173
It is true that the offense resulting from mortal sin has a certain
infinity by reason of the infinite majesty of God Who is offended,
but satisfaction also has a certain infinity proceeding from the
infinite mercy of God, according as satisfaction is informed by
grace by which man’s offering is made acceptable. St. Thomas,
as mentioned in the stud}' of the doctrine of St. Bonaventure,
rejects as “nothing” the opinion which holds that satisfaction
can be made only for the finite conversion to created good and
not for the infinite aversion from God. He further declares
that the view which holds that man can make satisfaction for
sin in virtue of the infinite merits of Christ is identical with his
own statement of the solution: “through faith in their Mediator,
grace is given to believers.” 175
176
In the argument just offered, St. Thomas seems to be speak­
ing about the satisfaction made for sin in general or about the
entire process of complete reconciliation with God. He expressly
states that satisfaction can be made both for the infinite aversion
from God, whence comes the real offense, and for the finite con­
version to created good. Yet we have seen that the real, though
not necessarily exclusive, basis for strict satisfaction is the debt
of temporal punishment flowing from the inordinate conversion
to creatures. It is logical, however, to say that what applies to
the ensemble of Penance applies also to strict satisfaction. Indeed
it is only because grace remits sin and eternal punishment through
the infinite merits of Christ that man can make satisfaction for
the debt of temporal punishment.
CONDITIONS

The primary condition of all satisfaction is that it be acceptable
to God.177
On the part of man, two conditions are required: temporal life
175 In Librum IVum, Dist. XV, q. 1, a. 2, sol.
176 ibid., ad lum, ad 3um ; cf. ibid., Dist. XIV, q. 2, a. 1 sol. 1 ad 4tim
177 Ibid., Dist. XV, q. 1, a. 3.

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

159

and the state of grace and charity. The first follows the general
teaching that the time of penance closes with the completion of
man’s probation on earth.178
The possession of grace and charity is essential because through
such possession alone can works of satisfaction be acceptable to
God. St. Thomas repeats the arguments which have been found
in almost all his predecessors. Satisfaction in general must be
for all mortal sins without exception: satisfaction must remove
a preceding offense and hence must be apt for that task. The
removal of the offense, however, is also the restoration of friend­
ship.' Therefore, since a single mortal sin impedes the restora­
tion of friendship between sinner and God, man cannot make
satisfaction for one mortal sin while he remains fixed in another
mortal sin.179
Therefore, sin is an impediment to satisfactory works—in other
words, actual satisfaction presupposes grace.180 This fact appears
more clearly in the discussion of the penitent who, after having
his sins remitted, falls into another mortal sin before completing
his satisfaction. St. Thomas states that such a penitent does not
make satisfaction and that the penal works he performs are of
no value to him. Because “ in satisfaction it is necessary that
after friendship has been restored, the equality of justice be also
restored.” This equality in satisfaction is not a strict objective
equivalent, but rather the equality of proportion according to
the acceptance of God. “ Hence it is necessary, even when the
offense has already been removed through previous contrition,
that the satisfactory works [themselves] be acceptable to God,
which [quality] charity bestows upon them; and therefore with­
out charity works are not satisfactory.” 181
St. Thomas regards it as obvious that there is no merit to be
gained by works performed in the state of mortal sin. In the
treatment of St. Bonaventure, however, we saw that the Seraphic
Doctor viewed as probable the opinion which allowed such works
performed without charity to revive with the return of charity,
Ibid.,
w ibid.,
is° Ibid.,
isi Ibid.,
its

Dist.
Dist.
Dist.
Dist.

XX, q. 1, a. 1, sol. 1.
XV, q. 1, a. 3, sol. 1.
XVI, q. 1, a. 1, sol. 2, ad 3um.
XV, q. 1, a. 3; sol. 2.

160 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

but only in so far as they were satisfactory and not as meritorious.
Bonaventure himself held it was more secure to deny even this
limited revival. St. Thomas here denies the very possibility.
Such works do not revive even as satisfactory. Both the meri­
torious and the satisfactory' value of works performed in charity
comes from the same fountain—the fact that they· are acceptable
to God. Hence the return of charity, which cannot render dead
works meritorious, has no power to make dead works satisfac­
tory'·—such works are simply not acceptable to God.132
To this hard and fast rule St. Thomas makes one exception.
Those penal works performed without charily which leave some
effect in the performer and to the degree in which those works
remain can be revived. Those which entirely pass away must
be repeated. These are the words of St. Thomas:

. . . there are some satisfactions from which some effect
remains in the performers, even after the act of satis­
faction passes away; just as from fasting the weakening
of the body remains, from the giving of alms the de­
crease of possessions, and so on in like cases; and it is
not necessary that such satisfaction performed in the
state of sin be repeated; because through penance and in
the degree that an effect remains from them, they are
acceptable to God. But satisfactions which do not leave
any effect in the performer after the act passes away,
must be repeated, as in the case with prayer and similar
acts.183
Hence Thomas follows his teacher, Albert the Great : only-’ those
satisfactory works performed in sin which leave an effect in the
performer can be revived with the return of charity. Those
which completely^ pass away must be repeated.
Thomas demands other conditions on the part of the act of
satisfaction. It must be free, that is, it must be voluntarily’ as­
sumed or at least patiently accepted. Of its very nature an act
of penance is a human act. It must therefore proceed from the*
188
AS2Ibid., sol. 3.
188 Ibid.t ad 3um,

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

161

will.184 The satisfactory act must also be good ; otherwise it will
not be for the honor of God.185186
A satisfactory work needs the “ help of God,” the help of
actual grace.186 For while “ the remission of guilt, and of the
debt of eternal punishment pertains to operating grace (gratiam
operantem)yet the “ remission of the debt of temporal punish­
ment pertains to cooperating grace (gratiam cooperantem),
namely, in so far as man by patiently bearing punishments with
the help of divine grace, is absolved also from the debt of tem­
poral punishment.” 187
Finally’, the work of satisfaction must be penal. As we have
seen, only through this penal aspect can something be taken away
from the sinner; especially through such penalty will the sinner
be deterred from the repetition of his sin.188 Just as the dif­
ficulty of a work is considered in the question of merit, so the
penal character of a work is weighed in satisfaction. Other
things being equal, the diminution of the difficulty will decrease
the merit and similarly the lessening of the penal aspect will
decrease the satisfactory value. It should be noted, however, that
where the penalty is not diminished objectively but only through
promptness of the will inspired by charity, the satisfactory value
is not only not lessened but is actually increased.189
VICARIOUS SATISFACTION

By reason of the bond of charity existing among the faithful,
one person can satisfy for another so far as the debt of punish­
ment is concerned. But the medicinal aspect of satisfaction can
profit only the sinner for whom it is intended. To gain that
benefit the sinner must offer the satisfaction himself. As a result
of these two observations it follows that one person may be
allowed to satisfy for the debt of another quite readily, but where
the satisfaction is needed also as a remedy, only some kind of
184 Ibid., Dist. XV, q. 1, a. 2, ad 2um.
385 Ibid., a. 4, sol. 1.
186 Ibid., a. 1, sol. 3, ad 2um.
^7Sutnma Theologica, HI, q. 86, a. 4, ad 2um.
iSS In Librum IVum, Dist. XV, q. 1, a. 4, sol. 1.
iss Ibid., ad 2um.

162 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

impossibility will permit such vicarious satisfaction.
Thomas states it :

As St.

Nor is it further demanded that he for whom satisfac­
tion is made, be incapable of making satisfaction : because
even if he were capable, while another satisfies for him,
he would be free from the debt. But that [incapability]
is required in so far as satisfactory punishment is
remedial: whence it is not to be permitted that one per­
son make satisfaction for another, unless some defect
appears in the penitent; either a corporal [defect],
through which he is powerless to sustain ; or a spiritual
one, through which he is not disposed to bear the punish­
ment.180
Where a second person makes satisfaction in place of the sinner
himself, a greater penalty should not be exacted. St. Thomas
does not hold, as Alexander of Hales and St. Bonaventure did,
that one’s own pains are more satisfactory than those of another.
In fact, by reason of the charity with which the second person
assumes the added penalty, the satisfaction he offers may be of
greater value; in such a case even a smaller penance could there­
fore suffice.
SACRAMENTAL SATISFACTION

The matter of the sacrament of Penance is made up of human
acts, which acts are called the parts of Penance: contrition, con­
fession, satisfaction. Their necessity appears from the considera­
tion of the purpose of Penance: a recompense to remove the
offense of preceding guilt. This recompense is perfected in three
steps.
The first is displeasure over the past guilt; otherwise
one would not proceed to recompensation willingly ; and
this is perfected through contrition. The second is that
[the sinner] make known his guilt to God through the
priest; otherwise he would not offer himself unto recom­
pense according to the judgment of Him against Whom
he sinned; and this is confession. The third is that [the
190 Ibid.. Dist. XX, q. 1, a. 2, sol. 3.

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

163

sinner] make compensation according to the judgment
of the priest; and in this regard it is satisfaction.191
As is evident from the foregoing, the penitent himself supplies
the matter in the sacrament of Penance. To the priest pertains
“ the consummation of those acts through absolution and the
injunction of punishment.” 192
Satisfaction in voto is absolutely essential to the sacrament of
Penance and is always required even when actual satisfaction is
impossible. The reason for this requirement is that satisfaction
in voto is a part of true contrition without which there is no
forgiveness.193 Actual satisfaction is an integral part of the
sacrament and is necessary in every case in which it is not ren­
dered impossible.194 Its sacramental nature is derived from the
injunction of the confessor, the dispenser of the sacrament.
The situation faced b}' the priest is as follows. The penitent,
freed from the guilt of mortal sin and the debt of eternal punishment, must still meet the debt of temporal punishment due to
his sin. If no further step were taken, this debt would be
exacted later in purgatory. That debt, moreover, is out of all
proportion to the capacity of the penitent on earth. But through
the power of the keys that debt is diminished in such a way
as to become proportioned to human strength ; as a consequence
man can pay the debt in this life through satisfaction.195
As has been previously noted, this temporal punishment is
demanded for two reasons : in order to punish the preceding fault
and to offer a remedy preserving from future guilt. These ends
must be kept in mind by the confessor in assigning satisfaction.
The basic principle calls for a proportioned satisfaction.196
In order to remit the debt, punishment must be proportioned to
wi ln Librum IVum, Dist. XVI, q. 1, a. 1, sol. 2; cf. Summa Theologica,
III, q. 90, a. 2.
i°2 ibid,, ad lum.
ιβ3 Summa Theologica, III, q. 90, a. 2, ad lum.
104 In Librum IVum, Dist. XVI, q, 1, a. 1, sol. 3; cf. ibid., Dist. XVII,
q. 3, a. 3, sol. 2, ad lum.
Ibid., Dist. XVII, q. 3, a. 5, sol. 2.
Ibid., Dist. XX, q. 1, a. 2, sol. 1 ; cf. ibid., Dist. XIV, q. 2, a. 1, sol.
2, ad 2um.

,
I
*
i
1
i
i

. !
i
!

164 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
the guilt of the sin : the quantity of the atonement must be pro­
portioned to the quantity of the sin. Yet that proportion will
be affected by the depth of contrition in the penitent, by the
shame of confession, and by the power of absolution. It stands
to reason that the more punishment suffered in contrition, for
example, the less remains for satisfaction to accomplish. Indeed
contrition, both as supernatural displeasure of the will over sin
and as sensible sorrow excited by the will, may be so deep as
to remove all the temporal punishment due to sin.197198
199
That fact,
however, would not remove the obligation of confession and
satisfaction for two reasons: (1) man cannot be certain that his
contrition was sufficient to remove all punishment; (2) both con­
fession and satisfaction are matters of precept and their omission
would constitute a transgression.108 It is important to note also
that one of the effects of confession is the remission of part
of thè punishment due.109 The very shame involved in confes­
sion and the power of the keys applied therein also aid in the
expiation of the temporal punishment.200
The attention demanded of the confessor is not yet completed.
The priest in the confessional must not only weigh the quantity
of the punishment which he intends to enjoin, but also its power
in so far as it is a part of the sacrament.201 The mere quantity
of punishment due to sin could be assigned by one who does not
possess priestly powers. But the sacramental character of the
punishment is what makes it valuable :

H

for satisfaction would not suffice for the expiation of
the punishment of sin from the quantity of punishment
which is imposed in satisfaction; but it does suffice in
so far as it is a part of the sacrament, having sacramental power (virtutem) ; and therefore it is necessary
that it be imposed through the dispensers of the sacraments, and hence confession is necessary.202
197 Ibid.,
198 Ibid.,
199 Ibid.,
200 Ibid.,
201 Ibid.,
202 Ibid.,

Dist. XVII, q. 2, a. 5, sol. 2.
q. 2, a. 1, sol. 1, ad 8um.
q. 3, a. 2, sol. 1.
a. 1, sol. 1, ad lum.
a. 3, sol. 1, ad 3um.
a. 1, sol. 1, ad 4um.

165

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

The foregoing seems to indicate the special ex opere operato effect
of satisfaction as sacramental. Certainly St. Thomas makes it
clear that sacramental satisfaction has a far greater value in
expiating temporal punishment than do penal works privately
assumed.
jr
St. Thomas likewise points out the special effects of sacramental satisfaction. Satisfaction in veto, being part of true
contrition, cooperates in the conferring of grace; actual satisfac­
it . tion achieves an increase of grace.203 By satisfaction the penitent,
attains the full effect of grace in the abolition of sin, because
satisfaction liberates the penitent entirely from the debt of sin.204
.· t
As a remedy for sin, the satisfaction should be assigned accord.i
ing as it will aid either the sinner himself or others. In this
connection a greater punishment is sometimes enjoined for a
lesser sin, either because the penitent himself is more prone to
i?
the sin, e.g., a heavier penance would be imposed upon a young
man for the sin of fornication than would be assigned to an older
’y.y man, even though the older man probably sinned more grievously;
or “ because in one person, such as a priest, a sin is more danV
gerous than in another ; or because many people are more prone
to that sin, and accordingly the many are to be frightened through
p
the punishment of one.” Thus, according to St. Thomas, it is
not an absolute rule that a greater penance is always imposed
for a greater sin.205
In enjoining satisfaction as medicine, there is also a certain
special suitability in each of the three classes of satisfactory
works against sins arising from one of the three great sources
- of sin. ‘'Against the concupiscence of the flesh fasting is
arrayed; against the concupiscence of the eyes, almsgiving;
• against the pride of life, prayer.” 200
Therefore the priest must enjoin proportioned satisfaction, and
the penitent, having accepted it, must fulfill that satisfaction.
203 Summa Theologica, III,
204 In Librum ILum, Dist.
205 Ibid., Dist. XX, q. 1, a.
208 Ibid., Dist. XV, q. 1, a.

q. 90, a. 2, ad 2um.
XVI, q. 1, a. 1, sol. 2, ad 3um.
2, sol. 1.
4, sol. 3and ad 3uin.

a®

166 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

John Duns Scows (4-1308)
John Duns Scotus was born about the year 1270. The place
of his birth is not as yet determined, although England seems
more probable. He joined the Franciscans, probably about 1290.
Scotus lived and taught at Oxford. It is quite certain that he
went to Paris in 1304 as a Bachelor of Arts. The Franciscan
General, Gonsalvus de Vallebona, wrote on November 18, 1304,
to the guardian of the college of the Franciscans at Paris, in­
structing him to present Scotus at the University for the Doctor's
degree.
He taught only a short time at Paris. In 1307 or 1308, Scotus
was sent to Cologne, probably to take a post as professor at the
University.
Scotus died in Cologne on November 8, 1308, and was buried
there in the Monastery of the Minorites.
Duns Scotus wrote voluminously, but the editions of his works
probably contain mor^than he actually wrote. His greatest
work, the Opus Oxoniense, a commentary on the Sentences of
Peter Lombard, was written while Scotus was at Oxford.207
NATURE OF SATISFACTION

On the surface, Scotus’ doctrine concerning satisfaction seems
very much the same as that taught by his predecessors. There
are differences, however, which flow both from his concepts of
sin and of the sacrament of Penance and from his personal view
on the subject of satisfaction performed in the state of mortal
sin.
Scotus adopts the two-fold use of the term satisfaction, a use
commented upon by St. Bonaventure earlier. Satisfaction in gen­
eral is “ the voluntary restoration of an equivalent not otherwise
due.” 208 In this sense satisfaction applies equally well to contracts
and every type of obligation, and to satisfaction for sin. For,
“ since guilt makes the sinner a debtor to him against whom he
207 This masterpiece occupies Vols. 8-21 of the Paris (Vives) Edition
of Scotus’ Opera Omnia.
208In IVum Librum Sententiarum, Dist. XV, q. 1, n. 3, p. 174; “De
primo sciendum, quod satisfactionis generaliter sumptae haec est ratio ;
Satisfactio est redditio voluntaria aequivalentis alias indebiti.”

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

167

sins, that notion of satisfaction may be found there so that, namely,
he [the sinner] renders to him [against whom he sins] the equival­
ent, not otherwise due, of what he has taken away from him
through sin.” 20i'
This satisfaction in general consists, for the most part, in
voluntary penal actions or sufferings. It may indeed happen that
satisfaction will be found in some great non-penal act of charity
accepted by God, which, while not punishment in the proper sense,
is a greater good than the evil of sin and renders greater honor to
God than the proper punishment of sin. But ordinarily satisfac­
tion consists in acts or sufferings of a penal character.210
The penal, voluntary acts or sufferings which go to make up
satisfaction in general are reduced to three classes :
to the interior acl^of displeasure or the suffering of
sadness ;-and to the exterior act of confessing one’s own
sin, which is exceedingly penal, or the accompanying
suffering, namely, shame; and to the purely external act,
or suffering, namely mortifying the flesh; and all such
mortification is said to be contained or to be reduced to
fasting; or raising up the mind of God, and this is accom­
plished through prayer ; or dispensing one's temporal
goods, which is done through almsgiving.211
It immediately becomes evident that the third, or purely external
act is identical with satisfaction in the proper sense. Scotus
declares this explicitly in what follows.
Satisfaction in the strict sense “ is the laborious or penal ex­
ternal operation, voluntarily assumed, to punish sin committed by
one’s self, in order to placate the divine offense; or it is the suf209 /bid. ;
. cum culpa faciat delinquentem debitorem ei, in quem
peccat, potest ibi ista ratio satisfactionis inveniri ut, scilicet reddat sibi
aequivalens, et alias indebitum, quantum sibi abstulit per peccatum.”
230 Ibid., n. 8, p. 198.
233 Ibid.: “. . . ad actum interiorem displicentia^, vel passionem tristitiae,
et ad actum exteriorem confitendi proprium peccatum, quod est valde poenale ;
vel passionem concomitantem, scilicet verecundiam, et ad actum simpliciter
exteriorem, vel passionem, scilicet macerando carnem; et omnis talis
maceratio dicitur contineri vel reduci ad jejunium, vel elevando mentem in
Deum, et hoc fit per orationem, vel sua temporalia erogando, quod fit per
eleemosynam.”

168 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

fering or punishment voluntarily undergone to effect the same
end.” 212 This proper understanding of the term satisfaction is
thus much more limited than satisfaction in general which can be
found in both interior and exterior acts.
Strict or particular satisfaction is distinguished, as an external
work or suffering, from the internal act or suffering of the mind,
and from the act of the mouth or the accompanying shame.213
SATISFACTORY WORKS

Scotus has already indicated that the third act of satisfaction in
general consists in fasting, prayer, and almsgiving. He repeats
and adds to that statement here, saying that strict satisfaction is
found
in those three difficult works, namely, fasting, prayer, and
almsgiving ... ; or in the voluntary sufferings (pas­
sionibus') accompanying those three most difficult works.214
EFFECT OF SATISFACTION

■· Satisfaction performed through these three works achieves the
removal of the temporal punishment due to already remitted sin;
it thereby avoids for the penitent the more bitter punishment which
would otherwise be exacted after the present life in purgatory.215
NECESSITY OF SATISFACTION

A brief 'sketch of Duns Scotus’ opinion on mortal sin and its
forgiveness seems to be the only means of grasping his view of
the need of satisfaction.
The state of habitual injustice which follows upon mortal sin is
the privation of sanctifying grace. That alone, however, is not
sufficient to label a person a sinner nor to differentiate between
one who has sinned but once and one who has sinned many times.
212 Ibid., n. 11, p. 207: “. . . satisfactio stride sumpta est operatio ex­
terior laboriosa vel poenalis, voluntarie assumpta, ad puniendum peccatum
commissum a se, et hoc ad placandum divinam offensam; vel est passio seu
poena voluntarie tolerata in ordine praedicto.”
21» Ibid.
Ibid.; cf. ibid., n. 1, p. 173.
215 Ibid., n. 14, p. 217.

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

169

Scotus holds that once the act of mortal sin has ceased, that which
remains to make a man a sinner is a logical relation or obligation of
. undergoing punishment, “ in so far as the sinner is the object of
the intellect or of the will of God, because after he has committed
the sin, the will of God ordains him to a punishment correspond­
ing to the sin, and then the intellect [of God] foresees, and for
all time, until the due punishment is paid.’'216
This obligation of undergoing punishment can be fulfilled by
punishment or by the equivalent of punishment in the divine
acceptance. Once a sin has been committed, because He has been
offended by it, God wills to punish it. Once again Scotus admits
God can accept something other than punishment, but according to
the ordered power of God, sin is regularly taken away and order
restored through punishment. Moreover, in order to remove sin
this punishment must be voluntary.217 Penance, which either
punishes committed sin, or detests committed sin, or willingly
accepts the punishment inflicted, or patiently sustains such inflicted
punishment, is the voluntary punishment which is required for the
removal of post-baptismal mortal sin.218
The guilt of sin, or the obligation to punishment, can be remitted.
Penance, exercised in one of the four acts listed above, is required
as the voluntary punishment. From this penance, contrition fol­
lows. Tf that contrition be perfect, it provides a previous disposi­
tion or congruous merit for which God remits sin. If that con­
trition remains imperfect, then sin will be forgiven only through
absolution when the sacrament of Penance is received.210
Either way of forgiveness, by which the debt of eternal punish­
ment is forgiven and grace restored to the soul, ordinarily leaves a
debt of temporal punishment to be paid up by the penitent. This
216 In IVum Librum, Dist. XIV, q. 1, n. 6, p. 13 : “. . . quaedam relatio
rationis inquantum est objectum intellectus, vel voluntatis Dei, quia post­
quam commisit, Dei voluntas ordinat ipsum ad poenam correspondentem
peccato, et tunc intellectus praevidet, et pro omni tempore, donec poena
debita sit soluta.” Cf. ibid., nn. 3-5, pp. 9-11.
217 Ibid., nn. 8-13, pp. 29-33.
218 Ibid., nn. 14—16, pp. 37-38.
219 Ibid., q. 4, nn. 6-10, pp. 157-159; cf. ibid., Dist. XIX, q. unica, n. 23.
p. 649.

170 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
the penitent accomplishes through strict satisfaction, and because
the debt remains after forgiveness, satisfaction is necessary.
POSSIBILITY OF SATISFACTION

Concerning strict satisfaction, Scotus merely states that there is
no difficulty as to its possibility.220 Yet in dealing with satisfaction
in general, he lays down the principles which would also apply in
this case.
Negatively, Scotus does uphold that satisfaction is impossible
to man unaided by the merits of Christ, if that impossibility be
understood to limit the absolute power of God. Positively, he
does hold that, according to the ordered power of God,

God has not disposed to give first grace to any sinner
except in virtue of the merit of him, who was without sin,
namely, Christ, because . . . He has not disposed to
reconcile an enemy to Himself, except through homage
more pleasing than his offense was displeasing to Him ;
and'such homage of Him is the Passion of Christ, or the
merit of it (vel meritum ejus) ; and just as He has not
disposed to give grace to a sinner without the Passion,
without which grace there can be absolutely no satis­
faction, because not equivalent in some respect, nor
simply, nor in the divine acceptance, accordingly with
much more reason according to the ordered power of God
it is not possible that satisfaction be made to God for sin,
except in virtue of the Passion of Christ.221
The secret of our ability to make satisfaction to God rests squarely
and exclusively upon the merits of Jesus Christ. What would
apply to satisfaction in general would also apply to one of its acts.
CONDITIONS

Γη addition to dependence on the merits of Christ, there are
other conditions which must be fulfilled in order that a work may
be satisfactory.
The first condition of a satisfactory work is that it must be
acceptable to God. That might be termed the tenor of thought to
220 in IVum Librum, Dist. XV, q. I, n. 11, p. 206,
221 [bid., n. 7, p. 180.

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

171

be drawn from Scotus' general treatment of the subject; for
example, he states that penal works must be offered unless some­
thing else proves acceptable to God. And, as cited above, he
rules out satisfaction in general, which is not founded on grace
because, among other reasons, it is not equivalent homage in the
divine acceptance.
Man must be in possession of temporal life in order to offer
satisfaction ; the time of satisfaction ends with death.
Concerning man’s need of the state of grace, Scotus’ opinion is
somewhat involved. He teaches, as do his predecessors, that it is
impossible to offer total satisfaction to God for one sin while
remaining actually impenitent in regard to another mortal sin.222
For total satisfaction or satisfaction in general reconciles the per­
former to the one offended.
The treatment of the possibility of satisfaction in general has
already shown that all human satisfaction depends absolutely on
grace and therefore on the Passion of Christ.
Yet, when Scotus treats of the fulfillment of assigned sacra­
mental satisfaction, he clearly states that the state of grace is not
required for the remission of the punishment. First, Scotus
quotes the opinion so familiar from the works of his predecessors:
man cannot make exterior satisfaction for one mortal sin while
he remains guilty of another mortal sin, for then man would
placate God while remaining God’s enemy. Scotus views this
opinion as too harsh, and in opposition to it he states:
Therefore I say without prejudice, that he who truly
repents once, and receives the satisfaction, or condign
penance imposed upon him by the Church, exclusive of
error in the power of the keys {clave non errante'), how­
ever much he may afterward fall back, he will never be
held, except to fulfilling that single satisfaction; and if he
should fulfil it in charity, it is better, because he not only
pays the penalty, but gains merit. But if he should fulfil
it voluntarily outside charity, indeed he pays the penalty,
but he does not merit grace; if, however, it is demanded
of him outside charity, the penalty is paid, although he
himself does not pay it.223
222 In IVwn Librum, Dist. XV, q. 1, n. 10, p. 206.
223 Ibid., n. 16, p. 227; cf. ibid., nn. 15-18.

172 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

Therefore Scotus admits that it is much better for man to fulfill
the assigned penance in the state of grace, for then his act is not
only satisfactory but also meritorious. Yet man, even though he
is not in the state of grace, still pays the penalty so long as he
performs the assigned penance willingly; in this case, of course,
his act is satisfactory but not meritorious of grace. Scotus also lists
the case where man is neither in the state of grace nor willing to
make satisfaction ; in that case the penalty is exacted even though
the penitent himself does not pay it. This objective suffering of
the penalty is sufficient to pay the debt of punishment. It is
neither satisfactory nor meritorious, but is rather called satisfassio.
Scotus calls satisfaction fulfilled in the state of grace satisfaction
simpliciter, for it both reconciles and placates. According to the
commentator on Scotus’ doctrine, this would be exemplified by
justifying contrition, or by any strict satisfaction performed by a
just man.224 Satisfaction voluntarily fulfilled without the state of
grace is nevertheless termed true satisfaction by Scotus. This
seems to apply only to the performance of assigned sacramental
satisfaction. The objective suffering of a penalty, which is really
not satisfaction at all, is merely sufficient payment beyond which
nothing further is demanded.
Scotus is mainly concerned with the voluntary performance of
assigned satisfaction outside the state of grace. From what he
has said he draws several conclusions. (1) In a case where a
penitent has fulfilled while in mortal sin a great part of the
satisfaction imposed on him, and then repents of this particular
mortal sin, he is not obliged to repeat the penance by which he has
satisfied for his previous sins ; satisfaction is to be assigned only
for this most recent mortal sin which was the cause “ on account
of which that satisfaction was dead (œortwti). ” 225 (2) The fact
that satisfaction is dead does not destroy it as satisfactory, but only
in so far as it placates or restores to friendship.
And if it is said, therefore it is not satisfaction, it does
not follow, because it suffices to God that a person volun-*223
224 Ibid., Dist. XV, q. 1, Commentarius, n. 168, p. 254.
223 Ibid., Dist. XV, q. 1, n. 16, p. 228.

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

173

tarily pays the penalty due as punishment of committed
sin, because even satispassio, which appears less, suffices.226

(3) If such a person in mortal sin were to die and be condemned
to hell before he had finished the satisfaction assigned, that tem­
poral punishment would be completed in hell in whatever measure
it was not performed on earth. Once payment was completed, the
man would no longer be punished with that particular penalty.22.
The real point of difference between Scotus and the theologians
previousty treated seems to be this : the earlier theologians viewed
all satisfaction as necessarily conciliatory and hence demanded the
state of grace as a condition; Scotus holds that, in the fulfillment
of sacramental satisfaction as such, the payment of the penalty is
all that is per se intended ; therefore that payment can be separated
from the notion of reconciliation and can be made without the state
of grace in the penitent.
On the part of the satisfactory work, the first condition is
voluntariety ; as seen in Scotus’ definition of satisfaction previ­
ously, voluntariety is essential to satisfaction. Unless the work is
offered freely, it is not satisfaction, but is merely the objective
suffering of punishment (satispassio'),22ii
' Besides, satisfactory works must be good works and ordinarily
must be penal. It may sometimes happen that God will accept
some good non-penal net instead of the proper punishment, but the
rule calls for penalties.227
*229
Scotus does not explicitly state that exterior satisfaction must
proceed with the help of actual grace. That condition, however, is
not excluded in any positive statement, and its necessity may be
inferred from his general opinions on the entire process of repent­
ance as the work of God. Fruitful penance is the work of God,
not of man.230
SACRAMENTAL SATISFACTION

Peter Lombard had declared that contrition, confession, and
™ Ibid.
Ibid.
223 Ibid.,
229 Ibid.,
230 Ibid.,
227

n. 3, p. 174; cf.
n.

ibid.,

n. 11, p.

8, p. 198.

Dist. XX, q. unica, n. 3, p. 683.

207.

174 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
satisfaction were required for the perfection of Penance. Most
of the writers who followed him concluded that these three con­
stituted, in some way, parts of the sacrament. Duns Scotus,
horvever, states that “ those three are in no way parts ” of the
sacrament of Penance, “ because . . . the sacrament of Penance
is that sacramental absolution given in certain words. . . .”231
Yet when he deals with the question of restitution and its place in
the process of repentance and the reception of the sacrament of
Penance, Duns Scotus distinctly says of restitution that “ it is not
special satisfaction, which is the third part of Penance.” 232
The solution of these apparent opposites rests in a question of
terms. In the first instance, Duns Scotus considers the question
in relation to integral or essential and subjective parts, and touches
the sacrament of Penance. In the second case, he seems to con­
sider satisfaction as a part of the penal process which must precede
the reception of the sacrament.233 Add to this the fact that
Scotus considered integral and essential as synonymous.234
Even if those observations do not provide adequately for the
solution, the fact remains that Scotus holds that the three acts in
question are required for the worthy (digna} reception of the
sacrament. Confession is obviously required because the con­
fessor can absolve only those who have accused themselves in the
sacramental forum; and absolution is of no profit to the penitent
unless he has at least imperfect contrition. “ Satisfaction, how­
ever, must follow the sacrament of Penance in order that it may
have efficacy, and this [satisfaction] in re or in voto, unless the
judge can consider that those other preceding punishments are
sufficient for the payment of the entire punishment.” 233
Therefore, whatever may be said about the method or manner
in which Duns Scotus requires these three acts of the penitent, the
fact remains that he does require them. His view of satisfaction
certainly seems to agree with the earlier doctrine on the matter ;
231 [n IVum Librum, Dist. XVI, q. I, n. 7, p. 421 ; cf. ibid., Dist. XIV,
q. 4, n. 2, p. 139.
232 Hid,, Dist. XV, q. 2, n. 29, p. 329.
233 ibid., Dist. XVI, q. 1, n. 5, p. 419.
234 Ibid., n. 1, p. 416.
235 Ibid., n. 7, p. 421.

The Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century

175

satisfaction is necessary in order that the full effect of the sacra­
ment be attained; it is not, however, necessary in such a degree
that its absence would invalidate the sacrament. Such a declara­
tion does not conflict with what is now the more commonlyaccepted view; in fact, even if not in word, satisfaction is an
integral part of the sacrament of Penance.
The confessor meets the following situation in the confessional.
The penitent, freed from the guilt and debt of eternal punishment
due to his sin, is still bound by a debt of temporal punishment ;
indeed the debt of eternal punishment is changed into a debt of
temporal punishment. The priest through the power of the keys
looses a part of this temporal debt in absolution. For the re­
mainder of that debt he assigns sacramental satisfaction.236
Ordinarily, therefore, the confessor must assign satisfaction, and
the penitent, if he accepts it, must fulfill that satisfaction.237 It
must be admitted that contrition can be so intense as to remove the
entire debt of punishment. That fact, however, does not render
irrational the precept concerning the injunction of some proper
satisfaction for each sin. Contrition always includes some satis­
faction, at least in voto, and while it may suffice for the total
punishment occasionally, yet the rule which calls for infliction of
satisfaction is a general rule given for general cases, not for the
exception.238
If the penitent is unwilling to receive any penance from the
priest, and yet is sincerely sorry for his sins and firmly resolved
not to repeat them, he should be absolved and not sent away un­
forgiven, lest he should fall into despair. Yet the satisfaction due
should be made known to him, and he should be urged to fulfill
that satisfaction or its equivalent even without sacramental in­
junction ; otherwise he will pay in full in purgatory.239
In dealing with a dying penitent the confessor must not impose
*™Ibid., Dist. XIV, q. 4, n. 10, p. 159; cf. ibid., Dist. XVI, q. 1, n. 7,
p. 421 ; Dist. XXII, q. unica, n. 21. p. 824.
237 Ibid., Dist. XIX, q. unica, n. 27, p. 659; cf. ibid., Dist. XVII, q.
unica, n. 22, pp. 547-548.
238 Ibid., Dist. XV, q. 1, n. 18, p. 228.
239 ibid., n. 14, p. 217; cf. ibid., Dist. XIX, q. unica, nn. 27-28, p. 659
Dist. XVII, q. unica, n. 22, p. 547.

L

176 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

the penance due here on earth, nor can he impose a certain punish­
ment in purgatory because he lacks jurisdiction there. The priest
can propose the penance due and urge the penitent to fulfill it
should his health return; with this he should also recall the mercy
. of God to the dying person and strive to instill trust in God. In
a case where the penitent is so close to the end that he hears
words only with difficulty, mention of the penalty can be omitted,
and only the mercy of God extolled.24'1
Sacramental satisfaction must be proportioned to the guilt. That
proportion need not be mathematically exact ; rather a certain
latitude is allowed, so that the priest's judgment and (he imposition
of satisfaction should follow the mean of right reason. Below that
latitude a lesser punishment does not suffice ; a punishment above
it should not be imposed. But whatever is imposed within that
mean must be performed here or completed in purgatory. More­
over, where the punishment assigned is within the mean, even
though it is somewhat less than the penalty exactly due, if it is
fulfilled in satisfaction, nothing greater will be demanded in
purgatory.240
241
Besides this proportion in justice, wherever possible the satis­
faction enjoined should bear a congruous relation to the sin for
which it is due ; in this way the medicinal aspect of satisfac­
tion may be fulfilled. Tn general, to the types of sins flowing
from the three sources of sin named by St. John,242 congruous
punishments should be applied ; thus for sins of the flesh, fasting
should be enjoined; for sins of pride, prayer; and for sins con­
cerning temporal things, almsgiving. In this fashion, correspond­
ence, as well as proportion, of the punishment to the guilt is
achieved.243
The confessor must always consider the state of the penitent in
assigning penance. In striving for just proportion of satisfaction
to sin, he must be certain not to enjoin too heavy a penalty.244
Even in choosing penances most suitable to the correction of an
240 Ibid., Dist. XX, q. unica, n. 10, pp. 686-687.
241 Ibid., Dist. XIX, q. unica, n. 26, pp. 651-652.
242 I John 2:16.
243 Op. cit., Dist. XV, q. 1, n. 12, p. 216.
244 Ibid., n. 14,. p. 217.

evil, the confessor must realize that the condition of the person
is the final determinant of the satisfaction to be enjoined. In this
sense, a poor man, guilty of the sin of theft, could hardly be
assigned almsgiving as a penance.-15 Thus the penance which may
well correspond to the sin as a general rule does not at all cor­
respond necessarily in special cases.
2*5 Ibid., n. 12, p, 216.

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS
As was suggested in the Foreword, this study of satisfaction
has amounted to a synthesis of the ideas propounded by the
theologians of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries concerning the
operations of divine mercy and justice in the forgiveness of sin.
The key to their teaching on satisfaction depends upon the proper
balance of these two divine attributes.
In general. Most striking is the substantial agreement of the
doctrine of the doctors of these two centuries of theological
growth with the subsequent decrees of the Council of Trent,
formulated in refutation of the errors of the Reformers. Once
due allowance has been made for the clearer notion of the efficacy
of the sacrament of Penance and of the exact place which satis­
faction occupies in the sacrament, it is evident that the doctrine
taught, even by the earliest theologians considered, is the doc­
trine which is taught today.
This doctrine on satisfaction was substantially gathered and
united by the theologians of the twelfth century. Except for
vocabulary, the great Scholastics had little to add to the sub­
stance of the doctrine; their treatment, however, was better syn­
thesized, involved more of the finer points, and included more
explanations of accepted principles.
In particular. There were, however, several points which re­
ceived different emphasis in the earlier teaching and one point
indicative of complete difference in one case.
1. The notion of satisfaction began with the realization of the
fact of certain penalties or works assigned or assumed in punish­
ment of sin. The renaissance of theology was still vividly aware
of the teaching and demands of the early Church on laborious
penance. The gradual development reached its zenith in St.
Thomas’ explanation of the two parts in satisfaction : punishment
and spiritual medicine.
178

Conclusions

179

2. The sanie three classes of satisfactory works are almost
always listed : almsgiving, fasting, and prayer. Even in the
authors who did not make the classification as such, these three
works are implicitly or explicitly included.
3. Satisfaction is clearly seen as necessary. In fact the neces­
sity of satisfaction might well be called the point of twelfth
century teaching. The authors of that century vividly insist upon
satisfaction as the only means of escaping the terrible pains of
purgatory.
4. The reason for temporal punishment of sin was not touched
upon by the writers of the twelfth century. The Scholastics,
however, sought out the reason for such a debt. The explana­
tion of St. Thomas has become the common opinion of Catholic
theologians.
5. The possibility of satisfaction was not treated explicitly at
any length in the twelfth century. It is implied or stated as a
fact: man can escape those terrible torments of purgatory. The
thirteenth century turned to the explanation of the possibility.
God only demands the equality of proportion, not of quantity.
Christ satisfied for the infinite debt contracted by sin ; by the
merits of Christ, man satisfies for the finite debt.
6. The prerequisite of the state of grace won unanimous sup­
port in the case of extra-sacramental satisfaction. Scotus alone
differs from the other theologians in the fact that he denies its
necessity in the case of sacramental satisfaction. The central
reason for demanding the state of grace is that before the
penitent’s satisfactory works can be acceptable to God, the peni­
tent himself must be pleasing to God. Only the state of grace
constitutes the penitent a friend of God.
7. Intent upon the requirement of the state of grace, many
theologians gave no evident thought to the revival of sacramental
satisfaction performed in the state of mortal sin. Indeed for
Scotus this question presented no problem, since he held that
sacramental satisfaction performed in the state of mortal sin
immediately attained its satisfactory effect.
Peter Lombard and his disciple, Peter of Poitiers, denied any
revival to assigned satisfaction which is performed in the state
of mortal sin. Their statement of the problem, however, was

180 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
different from that of the later theologians. In their case, the
penitent had previously concealed a mortal sin in confession and
hence was not truly repentant. The satisfaction performed by
such a penitent was dead and would necessarily be repeated upon
complete conversion.
The great Scholastics considered an entirely different case. In
this case the penitent was truly repentant for all his mortal sins.
He received the injunction of the confessor, but before he ful­
filled the penance he fell into mortal sin and performed his
penance in that state. The authors of the thirteenth century
sought to determine the value of such penance upon the penitent’s
final conversion.
Alexander of Hales answered strictly that such works had no
value, that they do not revive with the return of grace, and that
the satisfaction must be repeated.
St. Bonaventure held that the revival of the satisfactory value
of such works performed in sin is probable. Yet he taught that
to deny such revival is more secure. The satisfaction need not
be repeated since the penitent fulfilled the precept of the con­
fessor. The penitent committed no sin by fulfilling his penance
in mortal sin, but the debt of temporal punishment remains to be
expiated.
St. Albert the Great admitted the revival of such satisfactory
works provided that they left an effect in the penitent. The
precept of the confessor was fulfilled, but satisfaction was not
made because the penitent was not acceptable to God.
St. Thomas taught that those satisfactory works would revive
which leave some effect in the penitent ; those works which pass
away completely must be repeated.
All the opinions give evidence that the ex opere operato efficacy
of sacramental satisfaction was not totally understood. The com­
mon teaching today is that such sacramental satisfaction per­
formed in mortal sin probably attains its satisfactory effect when
the obstacle of mortal sin is removed. The penitent certainly
fulfills the precept of the confessor although he probably commits
a venial sin by performing his penance in mortal sin.
8. Practically every theologian demanded for real satisfaction
the help of God, the help of grace. Ordinarily they did not use

Conclusions

181

the term actual grace, but it might be argued that St. Bonaven­
ture did intend it according to his own terminology.
9. The obligation of the confessor to enjoin satisfaction is
recognized as serious. Its binding force relaxed only in cases
involving penitents for whom satisfaction was physically or
morally impossible. The case most often recited was that of a
person near death or weakened In· grave and prolonged illness.
In such a case the confessor was not obliged to enjoin satisfac­
tion. Yet—and this is further evidence of the importance placed
upon the remission of temporal punishment through satisfac­
tion—these theologians directed the priests to make known to
the penitent the penance which would ordinarily be assigned, in
order that the penitent might perform that penance should he
be returned to health. Scottis alone explicitly stated that a
penitent who was unwilling to accept the injunction of penance
from the confessor should be absolved, and then only if such a
penitent were truly sorry and determined to avoid relapses. Yet
Scotus further directed that the satisfaction due should be
manifested and the penitent urged to fulfill it even without sacra­
mental injunction.
10.These theological writers also directed that the depth of
contrition should be weighed by the confessor before he enjoins
sacramental penance. Either implicitly or explicitly, all of them
asserted that contrition might be so deep as to fully satisfy for
the temporal punishment due to sin. Yet this fact alone would
not allow the confessor to omit the injunction of satisfaction.
According to his principles, Scotus would logically alloAv the
injunction to be omitted in a case where contrition was sufficient
to satisfy totally, since he allows its omission in the case of a
refusal by an otherwise disposed penitent.
Many of the early writers did not consider explicitly the omis­
sion of the injunction. Peter of Poitiers pointed out that the priest
cannot know such a depth of contrition and that in any case the
injunction would be good in practice. Alain of Eille maintained
the injunction should be rarely omitted—only in cases where
immense contrition is exteriorly manifest. Alexander of Hales
and St. Bonaventure held that the injunction could be omitted only
if the priest were certain that the penitent had made full satis-

182 Sacramental Penance in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

faction. St. Thomas taught that even if the total satisfaction by
the penitent were certainly known, the injunction of satisfaction
would still have to be made because it is a matter of precept.
11. The theologians demanded the injunction of satisfaction
proportioned to the number and the gravity of the sins confessed.
This conclusion in turn is based on other facts which the authors
clearly recognized.
a. There was universal recognition of the disproportion be­
tween the remittance of temporal punishment through satisfac­
tion and the exaction of temporal punishment in the flames of
purgatory. In the writings of every theologian, penitents are
urged to perform satisfaction with due diligence and thus to
escape the incomparably more painful torments of purgatory.
b. Correlative to this realization of the disproportion between
satisfaction and purgation is the stress upon the need of com­
plete satisfaction during this life so that there will be no debt
to be exacted in purgatory. Such stress lends the impression
that the temporal punishment due to sin can be fully remitted
in this life with comparative ease. In the writing of St. Thomas
the value and efficacy of satisfaction in remitting temporal punish­
ment is clearly attributed to its sacramental character.
12. The medicinal character and value of satisfaction as
assigned in the confessional is both known and demanded. The
principle is that confessors should assign to penitents acts of
those virtues which are contrary to their sins. This insistence
upon the medicinal character of satisfaction in no way detracted
from satisfaction as a punishment of sin. Rather did the theo­
logians give great importance to both aspects because satisfac­
tion is part of a sacrament which not only forgives the sins of
men but also cures them. The priest in the confessional is not
only the spiritual judge but also the spiritual physician of souls.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abelard, Peter. Ethica seu Liber Dictus Scito Te Ipsum. Patrologia Latina,
CLXXVIII, 633-678.

K
:-â

Abelard, School of. Epitome Theologiae Christianae. Ibid., 1685-1758.
Alain de Lille. Summa de Arte Praedicatoria. Patrologia Latina, CCX,
111-198.
-------- , Opusculum : De Sex Alis Cherubim. Ibid., 269-280.
-------- , Liber Poenitentialis. Ibid., 281-304.
-------- , Contra Haereticos, Libri Quatuor. Ibid., 305-430.
Albert the Great, St. Opera Omnia. Vol. XXIX, Commentarium in IV
Sententiarum. Paris : Vives, 1894.
: Alexander of Hales. Summa Theologiae, Pars Quarta. Coloniae Agrip­
pinae: Sumptibus loannis Gymnici, sub Alonoccrote, 1622.
Alphonsus M. de Liguori, St. Theologia Moralis. Vol. II. Augustae
Taurinorum ; Ex typis Hyacinthi Marietti, 1879.
Amann, É., et al.
Pénitence,” Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, XII,
1 (1933), 722-1138.
Amann, Ê. “Robert Pulleyn," Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, XII,
2 (1937), 2753-2754.
Antoine de Sérent. “Alexandre de Halés,” Dictionnaire d‘Histoire et de
Géographie Ecclésiastiques, II (1914), 259-261.
Balte, C. Les commentaires de Jean Duns Scot sur les quatre livres des
Sentences. Bibliothèque de la Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, Fasc. I.

I

*

I

Louvain, 1927.
Barry, David. “ Sacramental Penance,” Irish Ecclesiastical Record, XXVII
(Jan.-June, 1926), pp. 503-516.
Baudrillart, A., Vogt, A., et Rouziès, U. (eds.) Dictionnaire d’Histoire
et de Géographie Ecclésiastiques. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1910—
Billot, L. De Verbo Incarnato. Ed. 7a. Romae : Apud Aedes Universitatis
Gregorianae, 1927.
Bittremieux, J. “ L’Institution des Sacrements d’après Saint Bonaventure,”
Etudes Franciscaines, T. XXXV (1923), pp. 129-152, 337-355.
------- , “La doctrine de S. Bonaventure et le Concile de Trente,” ibid., pp.
225-240.
Bonaventure, St. Opera Omnia. 10 vols. Ad Claras Aquas (Quaracchi) :
Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1882-1902.
Boyer, Carolus. Tractatus de Gratia Divina. Romae: Apud Aedes Uni­
versitatis Gregorianae, 1938.
Brat, B. Les livres pénitentiaux et la Pénitence Tarifée. Lyons: Brignais,
1910.
183