|
Objection 1: It seems that the priest can bind and loose according
to his own judgment. For Jerome [Can. 86, Mensuram, De
Poenit. Dist. i] says: "The canons do not fix the length of time
for doing penance so precisely as to say how each sin is to be amended,
but leave the decision of this matter to the judgment of a discreet
priest." Therefore it seems that he can bind and loose according to
his own judgment.
Objection 2: Further, "The Lord commended the unjust steward,
forasmuch as he had done wisely" (Lk. 16:5), because he had
allowed a liberal discount to his master's debtors. But God is more
inclined to mercy than any temporal lord. Therefore it seems that the
more punishment the priest remits, the more he is to be commended.
Objection 3: Further, Christ's every action is our instruction.
Now on some sinners He imposed no punishment, but only amendment of
life, as in the case of the adulterous woman (Jn. 8). Therefore
it seems that the priest also, who is the vicar of Christ, can,
according to his own judgment, remit the punishment, either wholly or
in part.
On the contrary, Gregory VII [Act. Concil. Rom. v, Can.
5] says: "We declare it a mock penance if it is not imposed
according to the authority of the holy fathers in proportion to the
sin." Therefore it seems that it does not altogether depend on the
priest's judgment.
Further, the act of the keys requires discretion. Now if the priest
could remit and impose as much as he liked of a penance, he would have
no need of discretion, because there would be no room for
indiscretion. Therefore it does not altogether depend on the priest's
judgment.
I answer that, In using the keys, the priest acts as the instrument
and minister of God. Now no instrument can have an efficacious act,
except in so far as it is moved by the principal agent. Wherefore,
Dionysius says (Hier. Eccl. cap. ult.) that "priests should
use their hierarchical powers, according as they are moved by God."
A sign of this is that before the power of the keys was conferred on
Peter (Mt. 16:19) mention is made of the revelation vouchsafed
to him of the Godhead; and the gift of the Holy Ghost, whereby
"the sons of God are led" (Rm. 8:14), is mentioned before
power was given to the apostles to forgive sins. Consequently if
anyone were to presume to use his power against that Divine motion, he
would not realize the effect, as Dionysius states (Hier. Eccl.,
cap. ult.), and, besides, he would be turned away from the Divine
order, and consequently would be guilty of a sin. Moreover, since
satisfactory punishments are medicinal, just as the medicines
prescribed by the medical art are not suitable to all, but have to be
changed according to the judgment of a medical man, who follows not his
own will, but his medical science, so the satisfactory punishments
appointed by the canons are not suitable to all, but have to be varied
according to the judgment of the priest guided by the Divine instinct.
Therefore just as sometimes the physician prudently refrains from
giving a medicine sufficiently efficacious to heal the disease, lest a
greater danger should arise on account of the weakness of nature so the
priest, moved by Divine instinct, some times refrains from enjoining
the entire punishment due to one sin, lest by the severity of the
punishment, the sick man come to despair and turn away altogether from
repentance.
Reply to Objection 1: This judgment should be guided entirely by
the Divine instinct.
Reply to Objection 2: The steward is commended also for having done
wisely. Therefore in the remission of the due punishment, there is
need for discretion.
Reply to Objection 3: Christ had the power of "excellence" in the
sacraments, so that, by His own authority, He could remit the
punishment wholly or in part, just as He chose. Therefore there is
no comparison between Him and those who act merely as ministers.
|
|