|
Objection 1: It would seem that a priest cannot remit sin as to the
punishment. For sin deserves eternal and temporal punishment. But
after the priest's absolution the penitent is still obliged to undergo
temporal punishment either in Purgatory or in this world. Therefore
the priest does not remit the punishment in any way.
Objection 2: Further, the priest cannot anticipate the judgment of
God. But Divine justice appoints the punishment which penitents have
to undergo. Therefore the priest cannot remit any part of it.
Objection 3: Further, a man who has committed a slight sin, is not
less susceptible to the power of the keys, than one who has committed a
graver sin. Now if the punishment for the graver sin be lessened in
any way through the priestly administrations, it would be possible for
a sin to be so slight that the punishment which it deserves is no
greater than that which has been remitted for the graver sin.
Therefore the priest would be able to remit the entire punishment due
for the slight sin: which is false.
Objection 4: Further, the whole of the temporal punishment due for
a sin is of one kind. If, therefore, by a first absolution something
is taken away from the punishment, it will be possible for something
more to be taken away by a second absolution, so that the absolution
can be so often repeated, that by virtue of the keys the whole
punishment will be taken away, since the second absolution is not less
efficacious than the first: and consequently that sin will be
altogether unpunished, which is absurd.
On the contrary, The key is the power of binding and loosing. But
the priest can enjoin a temporal punishment. Therefore he can absolve
from punishment.
Further, the priest cannot remit sin either as to the guilt, as
stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 18), or as to the eternal
punishment, for a like reason. If therefore he cannot remit sin as to
the temporal punishment, he would be unable to remit sin in any way,
which is altogether contrary to the words of the Gospel.
I answer that, Whatever may be said of the effect of Baptism
conferred on one who has already received grace, applies equally to the
effect of the actual exercise of the power of the keys on one who has
already been contrite. For a man may obtain the grace of the remission
of his sins as to their guilt, through faith and contrition, previous
to Baptism; but when, afterwards, he actually receives Baptism,
his grace is increased, and he is entirely absolved from the debt of
punishment, since he is then made a partaker of the Passion of
Christ. In like manner when a man, through contrition, has received
the pardon of his sins as to their guilt, and consequently as to the
debt of eternal punishment, (which is remitted together with the
guilt) by virtue of the keys which derive their efficacy from the
Passion of Christ, his grace is increased and the temporal punishment
is remitted, the debt of which remained after the guilt had been
forgiven. However, this temporal punishment is not entirely
remitted, as in Baptism, but only partly, because the man who is
regenerated in Baptism is conformed to the Passion of Christ, by
receiving into himself entirely the efficacy of Christ's Passion,
which suffices for the blotting out of all punishment, so that nothing
remains of the punishment due to his preceding actual sins. For
nothing should be imputed to a man unto punishment, save what he has
done himself, and in Baptism man begins a new life, and by the
baptismal water becomes a new man, as that no debt for previous sin
remains in him. on the other hand, in Penance, a man does not take
on a new life, since therein he is not born again, but healed.
Consequently by virtue of the keys which produce their effect in the
sacrament of Penance, the punishment is not entirely remitted, but
something is taken off the temporal punishment, the debt of which could
remain after the eternal punishment had been remitted. Nor does this
apply only to the temporal punishment which the penitent owes at the
time of confession, as some hold, (for then confession and
sacramental absolution would be mere burdens, which cannot be said of
the sacraments of the New Law), but also to the punishment due in
Purgatory, so that one who has been absolved and dies before making
satisfaction, is less punished in Purgatory, than if he had died
before receiving absolution.
Reply to Objection 1: The priest does not remit the entire temporal
punishment, but part of it; wherefore the penitent still remains
obliged to undergo satisfactory punishment.
Reply to Objection 2: Christ's Passion was sufficiently
satisfactory for the sins of the whole world, so that without prejudice
to Divine justice something can be remitted from the punishment which a
sinner deserves, in so far as the effect of Christ's Passion reaches
him through the sacraments of the Church.
Reply to Objection 3: Some satisfactory punishment must remain for
each sin, so as to provide a remedy against it. Wherefore though, by
virtue of the absolution some measure of the punishment due to a grave
sin is remitted, it does not follow that the same measure of punishment
is remitted for each sin, because in that case some sin would remain
without any punishment at all: but, by virtue of the keys, the
punishments due to various sins are remitted in due proportion.
Reply to Objection 4: Some say that at the first absolution, as
much as possible is remitted by virtue of the keys, and that,
nevertheless, the second confession is valid, on account of the
instruction received, on account of the additional surety, on account
of the prayers of the priest or confessor, and lastly on account of the
merit of the shame.
But this does not seem to be true, for though there might be a reason
for repeating the confession, there would be no reason for repeating
the absolution, especially if the penitent has no cause to doubt about
his previous absolution; for he might just as well doubt after the
second as after the first absolution: even as we see that the sacrament
of Extreme Unction is not repeated during the same sickness, for the
reason that all that could be done through the sacrament, has been done
once. Moreover, in the second confession, there would be no need for
the confessor to have the keys, if the power of the keys had no effect
therein.
For these reasons others say that even in the second absolution
something of the punishment is remitted by virtue of the keys, because
when absolution is given a second time, grace is increased, and the
greater the grace received, the less there remains of the blemish of
the previous sin, and the less punishment is required to remove that
blemish. Wherefore even when a man is first absolved, his punishment
is more or less remitted by virtue of the keys, according as he
disposes himself more or less to receive grace; and this disposition
may be so great, that even by virtue of his contrition the whole
punishment is remitted, as we have already stated (Question 5,
Article 2). Consequently it is not unreasonable, if by frequent
confession even the whole punishment be remitted, that a sin remain
altogether unpunished, since Christ made satisfaction for its
punishment.
|
|