PENANCE
631
PENANCE
opinions have been put, forward. According to one
view, it was the remission, not of guilt, but of the tem-
poral punishment; the guilt had already been remitted
by the absolution which the penitent received in con-
fession before he entered on the public penance. This
finds support in the fact that the reconciliation could
be effected by a deacon in case of necessity and in
the absence of a priest, as appears from St. Cyprian
(Ep. xviii).
Speaking of those who had received libelli from the martyrs he says: "If they are overtaken by illness, they need not wait for our coming, but may make the exomologesis of their sin before any priest, or, if no priest be at hand, and death is imminent, before a deacon, that thus, by the imposition of his hands unto penance, they may come to the Lord with the peace which the martyrs had besought us by letters to grant." On the other hand, the deacon could not give sacramental absolution; consequently, his func- tion in such cases was to absolve the penitent from punishment; and, as he was authorized herein to do what the bishop did by the public absolution, this could not have been sacramental. There is the further consideration that the bishop did not necessarily hear the confessions of those whom he absolved at the time of reconciliation, and moreover the ancient formu- laries jjrescribe that at this time a priest shall hear the confession, and that the bishop, after that, shall pro- nounce absolution. But sacramental absolution can be given only by him who hears the confession. And again, the public penance often lasted many years; consequently, if the penitent were not absolved at the beginning, he would have remained during all that time in the state of sin, incapable of meriting anything for heaven by his penitential exercises, and expcsed to the danger of sudden death (Pcsch, op. cit., p. 110 sq. Cf. Palmieri, op. cit., p. 459; Pignataro, "De disciplina pocnitentiali", Rome, 1904, p. 100; Di Dario, "II sacramento della penitenza nei primi secoli del cristianesimo", Naples, 1908, p. 81).
The writers who hold that the final absolution was sacramental, insist that there is no docimientary evi- dence of a secret confession; that if this had been in existence, the harder way of the public penance would have been abandoned; that the argument from pre- scription loses its force if the sacramental character of public penance be denied; and that this penance contained all that is required in a sacrament. (Boudin- hon, "Sur I'liistoire de la penitence" in "Revue d'his- toire et de litterature religieuses", II, 1897, p. 306 sq. Cf. Hogan in "Am. Cath. Q. Rev.", July, 1900; Batiffol, "Etudes d'histoire et de theologie positive", Paris, 1902, p. 195 sq.; Vacandard in "Dict.de theol.", s. V. "Absolution", 156-61; O'Donnell, "Penance in the Early Church", Dublin, 1907, p. 95 sq.) While this discussion concerns the practice under ordinary circumstances, it is commonly admitted that sacra- mental absolution was granted at the time of con- fession to those who were in danger of death. The Church, in fact, did not, in her universal practice, refuse absolution at the last moment even in the case of those who had committed grievous sin. St. Leo, writing in 442 to Theodore, Bishop of Frcjus, says: "Neither satisfaction is to be forbidden nor reconcilia- tion denied to those who in time of need and immi- nent danger implore the aid of penance and then of reconciliation." After pointing out that penance should not be deferred from day to day until the moment "when then- is hardly space either for the confession of the iienileni or his reconciliation by the priest", he adds thai (■\eniii these circumstances "the action of penance and the grace of communion should not be denied if asked for by t he penitent " (Ep. eviii, c. iv, in P. L., LIV,1011 ). St .'Leo states expres.sly that he was applying theecclesiastical rule fecrif.'iM.s/icaregMfa).
Shortly before, St. Celestine (428) had expressed his horror at learning that "penance was refused the dy-
ing and that the desire of those was not granted who iu
the hour of death sought this remedy for their soul";
this, he says, is "adding death to death and kilhng
with cruelty the soul that is not absolved" (Letter to
the bishops of the provinces of Vienne and Narbonne,
c. ii). That such a refusal was not in accordance with
the earlier practice is evident from the words of the
Council of NicEca (325): "With respect to the dying,
the ancient canonical law shall now also be observed,
namely, that if any one depart from this life, he shall
by no means be deprived of the last and most neces-
sary viaticum" (can. xiii). If the dying person could
receive the Eucharist, absolution certainly could not
be denied. If at times greater severity seems to be
shown, this consisted in the refusal, not of absolution,
but of communion; such was the penalty prescribed
by the Council of Elvira (306) for those who after bap-
tism had fallen into idolatry. The same is true of the
canon (22) of the Council of Aries (314) which enacts
that communion shall not be given to "those who
apostatize, but never appear before the Church, nor
even seek to do penance, and yet afterwards, when
attacked by illness, recjuest communion". The coun-
cil lays stress on the lack of proper disposition in such
sinners, as does also St. Cyprian when he forbids that
they who "do no penance nor manifest heartfelt sor-
row" be admitted to communion and ])eaee if in illness
and danger they ask for it; for what jironipts them to
ask [communion] is, not repentance for their sin, but
the fear of approaching death" (Ep. ad Antonianum,
n. 23).
A further evidence of the severity with which public penance, and especially its solemn form, w'as adminis- tered is the fact that it could be performed only once. This is evident from some of the texts quoted above (TertuUian, Hermas). Origen also says: "For the graver crimes, there is only one opportunity of pen- ance" (Hom. XV, "In Levit.", c. ii); and St. Ambrose: "As there is one baptism so there is one penance, which, however, is performed publicly" (De poenit., II, c. X, n. 95). St. Augustine gives the rea.son: "Al- though, by a wise and salutary provision, opportunity for performing that humblest kind of penance is granted but once in the Church, lest the remedy, be- come common, should be less efficacious for the sick . . . yet who will dare to say to God: Wherefore dost thou once more spare this man who after a first penance has again bound himself in thefetters of sin? " (Ep. cliii, "Ad Macedonium"). It may well be ad- mitted that the discipline of the earliest days was rigorous, and that in some Churches or by individual bishops it was carried to extremes. This is plainly stated by Pope St. Innocent (405) in his letter (Ep. vi, c. ii) to Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse. The question had been raised as to what should be done w-ith those who, after a lifetime of licentious indulgence, begged at the end for penance and communion. "Regarding these", WTites the pope, "the earlier practice was more severe, the later more tempered with mercy. The former custom was that penance should be granted, but communion denied; for in those times persecutions were frequent, hence, lest the easy ad- mission to communion should fail to bring back from their evil ways men who were sure of reconciliation, very rightly communion was refused, while penance was granted in order that the refusal might not be total. . . . But after Our Lord had restored peace to his Churches, and terror had ceased, it was judged well that coinniunion be given the dying le.st we should seem to follow the liarshness and sternness of the heretic Novatian in denying pardon. Commu- nion, therefore, .shall be given at the last along with penaiiie, that these men, if only in the supreme mo- ment of death, may, with the permission of Our Saviour, be rescued from eternal destruction."
The mitigation of public penance which this passage indicates continued throughout the subsequent period,
