Scotus Academicus, Tomus decimus: De Baptismo, De Poenitentia, De Extrema Unctione

NOTE 1. It is certain that every sin, even the slightest, must necessarily be cleansed before the attainment of eternal happiness, for nothing defiled shall enter the kingdom of heaven, nor shall anyone ascend the Lord’s mountain or rest upon his holy mountain unless innocent in hands and pure in heart; hence, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” But theologians dispute by what means and remedies lesser sins, called venial, can be cleansed and forgiven. For the Council of Trent most plainly teaches that they can be expiated in many ways, sess. XIV, ch. 5, where it says: “Venial sins, by which we are not excluded from grace and into which we fall more frequently, although they are rightly and usefully confessed without any presumption, as the practice of devout persons shows, may nevertheless be omitted without fault and expiated by many other remedies.” Since the Council does not specify what those remedies are, theologians have taken occasion to put forward various ways by which they think such sins can be blotted out and forgiven.

NOTE 2. There are three principal and chief remedies by which venial sin is held especially capable of expiation: namely, the virtue of penance; frequent reception of the sacraments, especially penance and the Eucharist; and certain sacred actions which theologians call sacramentals, ten in number according to the older theologians: namely, the common confession usually made at the beginning of Mass and at the end of Compline; striking the breast as a sign of sorrow and penance; sprinkling with holy water; an act of interior sorrow for sins; prayer, especially the Lord’s Prayer; making the sign of the cross; eating blessed bread; giving alms; extreme unction; patiently enduring punishment; and works of mercy. All these are included in the following verses:

I confess, I strike, I sprinkle, I grieve, I pray,
I am washed, I eat, I give; by these I remove venial sins:
Unction, light punishment, compassion shown to the needy.

Other theologians, especially more recent ones, count only six such sacred actions that remit venial sin, which are contained in the following verse:

Praying, sprinkled, eating, confessing, giving, blessing.

These signify, first, the Lord’s Prayer, in which we pray that our daily faults be forgiven; second, holy water, which, as we said in the first Disputation, has various effects, especially the efficacy of remitting venial sins by the work of the one acting; third, blessed bread; fourth, general confession; fifth, the giving of alms; sixth, the blessing of a bishop or a consecrated abbot. The question, then, is whether venial sin is remitted not only through the virtue of penance, whether specifically or generally understood, and through reception of the sacraments, but also through such sacramentals.

NOTE 3. According to the Doctor, In IV Sent., d. 21, q. 1, n. 8, venial sin, besides an obligation to punishment, leaves in the soul some stain, or debt of guilt. For after saying at n. 6 that there are two opinions about the remission of venial sin, the first being “that the remission of venial guilt is nothing other than payment of the temporal punishment due for it—for after the passing act, the guilt that remains is nothing other than a debt to the punishment due; and this venial debt is only to temporal punishment,” he adds at n. 8: “But this account does not please, because the Saints seem to distinguish between the remission of the guilt of any sin and of its punishment, and especially between remission of guilt and payment of the punishment due for that guilt.” This truth is plainly gathered a posteriori from the universal practice of the Church, which imposes sacramental penance for venial sins alone when confessed and remitted as to guilt through absolution. The a priori reason is that venial sin is a true and real offense against God, in keeping with the Apostle James, ch. 3: “In many things we all offend.” Therefore, just as mortal sin, because it is a grave offense, leaves behind a grave habitual stain, so by the same reasoning venial sin, because it is a slight offense, leaves behind a slight habitual stain. Both, then, displease God, since by either God’s law is violated and hence there is a certain virtual contempt of God, which cannot but truly and really displease him, though unequally. The question is how this debt of venial guilt can be cleansed both in this life and after death.

First conclusion. — VENIAL SIN IS REMITTED IN THIS LIFE AS TO THE DEBT OF GUILT AND OF PUNISHMENT, NOT ONLY THROUGH AN ACT OF FORMAL OR VIRTUAL PENANCE, BUT ALSO THROUGH RECEPTION OF THE SACRAMENTS AND EVERY MERITORIOUS WORK, AND THEREFORE ALSO THROUGH SACRAMENTALS. This conclusion has four parts, of which

The first is proved: namely, that venial sin is remitted through an act of formal or virtual penance. For venial sin can be remitted by that by which mortal sin can be blotted out; but an act of penance suffices to blot out mortal sin, not only formal but also virtual, as was said in the preceding Question. Therefore an act of either kind of penance will suffice all the more for this. Furthermore, that suffices for remitting venial sin which is opposed to it; but virtual penance is sufficiently opposed to virtual sin. For in venial sin there is a turning away, not from friendship—which only mortal sin dissolves—but from familiarity with God, because this sin is some disordered turning toward a creature. In virtual penance, however, such as an act of charity, there is a turning away from the creature and an approach to familiarity with God. Therefore virtual penance suffices to expiate this kind of sin.

YOU WILL SAY: Venial sin is removed only by what is opposed to it; but virtual penance is not opposed to it. For if any act is an act of virtual penance, it is most of all an act of fervent charity; but this is not opposed to venial sin, both because it can coexist with it, and because devotion toward divine things and a joking lie have no opposition: for truth, not devotion, is opposed to a lie. Therefore, etc. — I DENY the minor premise. In answer to its proof I say that, although an act of most fervent charity or devotion is not formally opposed to venial sin, it is opposed to it virtually and according to its generic character. For both of those virtues tend readily toward God, and with alacrity of spirit; consequently they are opposed to the delay, or languor, in the movement’s tendency toward God which venial sin brings about.

The second part is proved: namely, that venial sin can be remitted through reception of the sacraments of the New Law. First, all the sacraments of the New Law, by the primary intention of Christ the Lord who instituted them, are directed as remedies for mortal sin. For the removal of that sin, two are instituted above all: baptism and penance; the rest are directed toward preventing it, as we said at the beginning of this Treatise. Since venial sins are far more easily remitted than mortal sins, it follows that venial sins can be remitted through reception of these sacraments. Second, all the sacraments apply to us the fruit of Christ’s Passion and were instituted to sanctify souls and dispose them perfectly for attaining eternal glory; therefore they also remove every impediment that can delay that attainment. Since venial sins delay it, it follows that they can be remitted through the sacraments. Furthermore, each sacrament has a special power and efficacy concerning remission of venial sin. For baptism, being spiritual rebirth, completely transforms a person from the state of sin to the state of grace. Hence the Council of Florence says that the effect of this sacrament is remission of every guilt, both original and actual; venial sin is included under actual guilt. The same is clear of the sacrament of penance, which is directed above all to blotting out mortal sins; therefore, with stronger reason, it is directed to remitting venial sins. Hence the Council of Trent teaches that venial sins are sufficient matter for sacramental absolution, as we shall explain below when treating confession. The same is evident of confirmation, whose proper power is directed especially to conferring an increase of spiritual life and consequently to removing what is opposed to such increase and perfection, as venial sins are. The same is also clear of the Eucharist, instituted as spiritual food and nourishment, whose proper power is to restore what is lost through the heat of concupiscence and thus to cleanse venial sins, which assail this spiritual life. Add that the proper effect of this sacrament is to stir up the fervor of charity, and hence to remove venial sins, which diminish that fervor. Thus the Council of Trent, sess. XIII, ch. 2, calls this sacrament “an antidote by which we are freed from daily faults and preserved from mortal sins.” Finally, the same is evident of the other sacraments, which confer a special holiness of soul and spiritual vigor, not only for avoiding but also for cleansing lesser offenses opposed to the perfection and preservation of such life.

The third part, namely that venial sin can be remitted through every meritorious work, is taught by the Doctor at n. 8, cited above, where he says: “It can be said in another way that venial sin can be remitted in this life not only through interior or exterior punishment, since that is not necessary for this, but through some act more acceptable to God than venial sin is displeasing to him; and this act may either be directed by the one acting toward remitting this venial sin or not directed by that person, but accepted by God in relation to it.” By these words the Doctor means that venial sin can be forgiven not only through an act of penance, whether interior or exterior, but also through any good and meritorious act more acceptable to God than the act of venial sin was hateful to him. This opinion of the Doctor is proved, first, because if any good work did not suffice for this, it would be especially because an actual or virtual act of penance would be required for it. But that is not so. It is proved: if actual or virtual penance were necessarily required beforehand for the remission of venial sin, it would follow that venial sin was remitted no more easily than mortal sin. For mortal sin can be removed and forgiven through an act of charity, and also through martyrdom, without any prior formal detestation. Why, then, can it not likewise be expiated through any meritorious work proceeding from outstanding charity? Furthermore, venial sin is not blotted out by actual or habitual contrition; therefore formal or virtual penance is not required for its expiation. The consequence is clear. The antecedent is proved: a sin is not remitted by contrition if it can coexist with contrition; but venial sin can coexist with an act of contrition. Therefore, etc. The major premise is established: sin is removed by penance precisely insofar as the act of penance is opposed to it and cannot coexist with it. The minor premise is proved: sin is not removed so long as the sinner takes pleasure in it; but one who elicits an act of contrition by which he obtains remission of mortal sin can call to mind some venial sin without a purpose of amendment; consequently venial sin can coexist with an act of contrition. Therefore, etc. Finally, whatever contrition confers outside the sacrament, attrition joined to the sacrament of penance can confer; but not all venial sins are always blotted out through attrition, as the Council of Trent teaches, sess. XIV, ch. 5, in the words cited by us in the first Note, where it indicates that venial sins may be omitted in confession without fault, “and expiated by many other remedies.” These remedies, distinct from confession and penance, must have the efficacy of blotting out those sins, and this can only be through satisfaction and, consequently, the offering of some work equivalent toward their remission. But an equivalent work can belong to the matter of any virtue, for example faith, almsgiving, prayer, or fasting, since these works are satisfactory, as is clear from Scripture; and the Fathers and Doctors count fasting, almsgiving, and prayer among the parts of satisfaction. Indeed, any good work can have this effect. Therefore it can do so especially for slight sins. To make any meritorious act effective for blotting out venial sins, it must be elicited and offered as satisfaction and compensation for that end. For if an act of penance and contrition, and also of love of God, is insufficient to blot out venial sin when it is not directed implicitly or explicitly toward that end, as was just said, then any other good act of lesser rank and worth will have that efficacy all the less. Add that if, in order to offer satisfaction for a person’s own sin through fasting, it is necessary that the fast—which could be undertaken for various ends—be directed toward intending such satisfaction, so too, for a satisfactory work to be effective for remitting venial sins, it must be performed with that intention. This intention does not give the good work its value, but applies it.

Finally, the fourth part is proved: namely, that sacramentals have the power to remit venial sin. For not only theologians but also supreme pontiffs and the holy Fathers say that these sanctify and cleanse through the Church’s blessing; but they do not cleanse from mortal sins. Therefore they must cleanse from venial sins. The minor premise is established: if they cleansed from mortal sins, they would confer first grace and so would possess the true and complete character of a sacrament. The minor premise has already been proved regarding holy water and blessed bread in the final question, article 1, of the preceding Treatise. — Their power is proved for the rest, first of all for the Lord’s Prayer. For St. Augustine in the Enchiridion, ch. 71, and the Fourth Council of Toledo following him, ch. 9, say: “Daily prayer of the faithful makes satisfaction for the daily, brief, and slight sins without which this life is not lived; for it belongs to them to say, ‘Our Father, who art in heaven,’ etc. This very prayer entirely blots out the smallest and daily sins.” It is no answer to say with Vazquez that this should be understood of a prayer accompanied by a movement of contrition and penance; that answer is wholly contrived. Otherwise such remission of slight sins would be attributed to the Lord’s Prayer no more than to other prayers by which contrition can be stirred up, for example the Psalm Have mercy on me, O God, and the other penitential Psalms. Add that this remission is attributed not to contrition but to this petition: “Forgive us our debts.” St. Augustine makes this especially clear in On Correction and Grace, ch. 5, where from those words of the Lord’s Prayer he proves that no one is without sin, and confirms this by the authority of St. Cyprian, who, explaining this passage of the Lord’s Prayer, says: “How necessarily, prudently, and salutarily we are admonished that we are sinners, since we are compelled to pray for our sins, so that, while forgiveness is sought from God, the mind may recall its own conscience. Lest anyone please himself as though innocent and perish more through exalting himself, he is instructed and taught that he sins daily, since he is commanded to pray daily for his sins. Thus, too, John says in his epistle: ‘If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.’” — The same is clear of general confession, which is customarily made at the beginning of Mass and Compline. For this public and general accusation of sins has the efficacy, when made with sincere devotion and religious feeling, of remitting not only venial sin but also of making satisfaction for forgiven mortal sins, as St. Augustine teaches in bk. 50, Homilies, final homily, ch. 9, and ep. 108. — The giving of alms also contributes greatly to this, as St. Jerome teaches admirably on Daniel ch. 4, where among other things he says: “We should know that if pardon is promised to Nebuchadnezzar for doing good works, it is promised much more to those who have committed lesser sins.” — Finally, episcopal blessing contributes to this, as theologians commonly teach. — It should be known, however, that such sacramentals do not have this efficacy of remitting venial sin unless they are preceded or accompanied by a movement of the soul on the part of the person to whom they are applied. For they must be applied to us through our faith and religious worship, since they are sacred ceremonies whose use must be religious and performed in a human manner. Thus, perhaps, they do not have this effect in the insane or those asleep, although they have other effects in infants, such as driving away demons and the like.

YOU WILL ASK: Whether sacramentals remit venial sin by the work performed or by the work of the one acting? — I ANSWER that if remitting sin by the work performed means effecting it not only in view of the dignity and merit of the act elicited by the one acting but also through the merit of another that lends its aid, sacramentals can in this sense be said to bring about that remission by the work performed. For they have this efficacy insofar as the holiness of the Church is morally applied to them through prayers by which she obtains this effect for them from Christ the Lord. — But if it is said that an effect is brought about by the work performed when it is given or produced from another’s merits as a matter of condign merit and infallibly, then these sacramentals cannot be said to act by the work performed. For then the Church obtains this efficacy for them only through her prayers, insofar as she beseeches God to confer certain supernatural helps for eliciting supernatural acts by which a person formally or virtually takes displeasure in venial sins and retracts them. For they are held to remit venial sins insofar as they are sacred ceremonies whose religious use stirs in us either attrition or devotion, that is, the fervor of charity, by which the sins themselves are remitted. For since venial sins are opposed to the fervor of charity and diminish its ardor, and since no privation can be removed except by the presence of the opposed form, sacramentals seem to remit venial sin in no other way than by obtaining, through Christ’s merits and the Church’s prayers, certain supernatural helps by which a person is stirred and assisted to elicit fervent acts of charity or penance, through which such sins are formally or virtually repudiated. Hence their application perhaps would not have this efficacy of remitting venial sins in adults who are insane or asleep, although in infants they have other effects, such as driving away demons and preventing demonic infestations.

YOU WILL SAY: If sacramentals remitted venial sin only by stirring up the fervor of charity, it would follow that there is no difference between them and sacred images, since those images too stir pious movements and the fervor of charity in us. But this seems absurd; therefore the former point from which it follows is absurd as well. — I DENY the consequence of the major premise. In answer to its proof, I say that this is the difference between sacramentals and sacred images: the latter stir up the fervor of charity in us only objectively, insofar as seeing them calls to mind the merits and virtues of those whom they represent; sacramentals, however, also bring this about effectively, insofar as through Christ’s merits and the Church’s prayers they obtain from God supernatural helps by which a person elicits fervent acts of charity.

Second conclusion. — HABITUAL GRACE IS REQUIRED BEFOREHAND, BUT NOT FORMALLY, FOR THE REMISSION OF VENIAL SIN; ACTUAL GRACE, HOWEVER, IS REQUIRED CONCOMITANTLY. This conclusion has three parts, of which

The Subtle Doctor indicates the first when he says, d. 15, q. 1, n. 7: “By his ordained power God has not decreed to give first grace to any sinner except through the merit of the one who was without sin, namely Christ. For, as was touched on above, he did not decree to reconcile an enemy except through a service more pleasing than the offense was displeasing to him; and such a service is Christ’s Passion or his merit. And just as he did not decree to give grace to a sinner without the Passion, without which grace no satisfaction can exist at all that reconciles, since it is in no way equivalent, nor so in itself or in divine acceptance, so much more is it impossible by God’s ordained power to make satisfaction to God for sin except through the power of Christ’s Passion.” By these words the Doctor means that satisfaction cannot be made and reconciliation with God cannot occur except through the benefit and application of the blood of Jesus Christ. Although he speaks only of reconciliation and satisfaction made on account of mortal sin, the same can be said, with due proportion, of venial sin. For it accords with piety and religion to believe that venial sins are remitted only by grace and in view of Christ’s merits. St. John indicates this clearly enough in his First Epistle, ch. 1: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Immediately afterward he adds the means of remission for these sins, saying: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all iniquity.” That this remission occurs on account of Christ he indicates in the following chapter, saying: “We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just, and he is the propitiation for our sins.”

The Apostle indicates this truth when he says, 1 Corinthians 13: “If I deliver up my body so that I burn, but have not charity, it profits me nothing.” From this one may infer that a person cannot make satisfaction for the debt of venial guilt, which suffices to impede and delay the attainment of eternal life. Otherwise he could profit greatly by being able to offer that satisfaction outside charity.

NOR IS IT AN OBJECTION that, as we shall say below, a person can make satisfaction for temporal punishment without charity; from this it seems to follow that something can be profitable without charity. — I ANSWER that the one who pays what the law has established for temporal punishment does not profit much. For just as release from punishment is a good, an equivalent payment is an evil; it does not profit a thief much to be hanged, even though by hanging he makes satisfaction for temporal punishment, or rather suffers enough. Although, therefore, the state of mortal sin does not remove the ability to make satisfaction for temporal punishment, it does remove reconciling satisfaction for guilt, because this is grace and mercy through Christ, which ought not to be granted except to one who through sanctifying grace is a living member of Christ.

St. Bonaventure explicitly teaches this assertion, In IV Sent., d. 21, p. 1, a. q. 1: “It should be said that some have held that venial sins can be blotted out without sanctifying grace, through freely given grace. They wished to show this on the ground that venial sin is not opposed to sanctifying grace but to freely given grace, and does not offend the divine Majesty, because in that sin nothing is loved above God, but something is loved somewhat disorderly beneath God. Therefore, just as mortal sin can be blotted out through grace, because it is opposed to grace, and because grace reconciles one who has offended God, and because it makes one love above all the God whom one had scorned, so venial sin can be blotted out through freely given grace, which removes that slight disorder and takes from the soul that occasion for loving God less; and there need not be grace elevating the soul to love God above all, since through venial sin nothing is loved above God. But this position, although it may seem probable, nevertheless deviates from the truth upon examination. For every sin, by the very fact that it is sin, defiles the soul in some way and disorders it in some way; and it must therefore displease God in some way. Since, then, even the slightest mark of displeasure that can exist without a habit restoring complacency and friendship cannot be removed, it must be held absolutely of every sin in general that none can be blotted out without sanctifying grace. For divine mercy has thus decreed to heal us. The Saints say this, and Scripture teaches the same, since it especially presents grace as necessary for blotting out sins.” Thus far the Seraphic Doctor. He confirms his opinion by the authority of St. Augustine, The City of God, bk. 21, ch. 27, where he says: “Yet not even grave sins, from which one must wholly depart by changing one’s conduct for the better, are forgiven those who pray unless what is said there is done: ‘As we also forgive our debtors.’ For if even the smallest sins, without which even the life of the just is not lived, are not otherwise remitted, how much more do those entangled in many and grave crimes, even if they have now ceased to commit them, obtain no pardon if they are inexcusable in forgiving others whatever anyone has sinned against them, since the Lord says: ‘If you do not forgive men their sins, neither will your Father forgive you.’” From this the Seraphic Doctor infers that one who does not forgive an offense received from a brother cannot hope for God’s pardon of the offense inflicted upon him for no other reason than that one unwilling to forgive is in a state of mortal sin, in which he merits no remission so long as he takes pleasure in it.

The second part is proved: namely, that a new infusion of habitual and sanctifying grace is not formally required for the remission of venial sin. For that is formally required which is required as the form removing a privation that was previously present; but sanctifying grace is not the form that removes the stain of venial sin, since venial sin can coexist with it in a wayfarer. Consequently, an infusion of sanctifying grace is not necessary for remission of venial sin.

YOU WILL ASK: Whether, at least concomitantly or consequently, that remission of venial sins requires a special infusion of sanctifying grace? — I ANSWER that this is not necessary, since the person whose venial sin is remitted already possesses sanctifying grace; consequently it need not be newly infused into him.

YOU WILL SAY: Venial sin diminishes the fervor of charity; therefore, for it to be remitted, that fervor must be restored. But it cannot be restored except through habitual grace; therefore some degree of that grace must be infused for the remission of this sin. — I DENY the minor premise. For the grace sufficient to restore that ardor of charity is actual grace, which recalls a person who clings in a disordered way to temporal things away from them and turns him toward God through an act of love.

The third part is proved: namely, that actual grace is necessary for the remission of venial sin, because 1 John 1 says: “The blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin.” Therefore it cleanses from venial as well as mortal sin. But the blood of Christ does not act without grace. 1 John 2: “If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father.” And the Second Council of Orange, can. 4: “We are cleansed from sin through the operation of the Holy Spirit,” because, according to Solomon, “The will is prepared by the Lord,” and according to the Apostle: “God is the one who works in us both to will and to accomplish according to his good will.” And canon 7: “Whoever says that by the vigor of nature we can think or choose, as is fitting, any good pertaining to the salvation of eternal life without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit does not understand the voice of the Lord saying in the Gospel, John 15, ‘Without me you can do nothing,’ nor that of the Apostle: ‘We are not capable of thinking anything of ourselves, as of ourselves,’ 2 Corinthians 3.” Canon 14: “No wretched person is freed from any misery unless he is anticipated by God’s mercy,” as it is said in Psalm 78: “May your mercies, O Lord, quickly go before us,” and in Psalm 52¹: “My God, his mercy shall go before me.” Canon 22: “No one has anything of his own except falsehood and sin. If any man has truth and justice, it is from that fountain for which we must thirst in this wilderness, lest we fail on the way.”

YOU WILL OBJECT AGAINST THE FIRST PART: Venial sin does not include deprivation of grace and coexists with grace; therefore habitual grace is not required for its remission. — I DISTINGUISH the consequent: habitual grace is not required as a formal, physical, or moral cause, I grant; as a disposition required beforehand, I deny. For, as we said, to be worthy of obtaining remission of venial sin as to the debt of guilt, a person must be acceptable to God and therefore must be in the state of sanctifying grace.

YOU WILL OBJECT 2. Venial sins are remitted through sacramentals; but these are applied equally to the just and to sinners, as is clear of holy water and blessed bread, which are given to both the just and sinners. Therefore habitual grace is not required beforehand for the remission of venial sin. — I DISTINGUISH the minor premise: sacramentals are applied to both the just and sinners, by the Church’s intention, for remission of venial sin as though they belonged equally to both, I deny; for other benefits that sinners can receive from the application of such sacramentals, I grant. For, for example, sprinkling with holy water can benefit them by driving away and removing the assaults of demons and sorcerers.

YOU WILL OBJECT 3. Venial sin is remitted in hell, since the punishment due for venial sins is relaxed for the damned; but the damned have no habitual grace. Therefore this is not required beforehand for remission of venial sin. — I DISTINGUISH the major premise: it is remitted as to the debt of guilt, I deny; as to the debt of punishment, for the reasons to be set out in the following question, I grant.

YOU WILL OBJECT 4. Remission of venial sins that occurs together with remission of mortal sins does not presuppose habitual grace, since the latter does not precede that remission of mortal sins. Therefore remission of venial sins does not necessarily require habitual grace. — I DISTINGUISH the consequent: it does not require it with priority of time and duration, since habitual grace need not be in the sinner before his sins are forgiven, I grant; it does not require it by necessity and simultaneous existence, I deny. For in the ordinary course a sin cannot be remitted unless habitual grace is present, through which we are restored to friendship with God and to the right to the eternal inheritance.

YOU WILL OBJECT 5. Against the final part: one contrary is removed by another; venial sin is a natural act often contrary to some natural virtue, as a joking lie is contrary to truthfulness, and excess in food and drink to temperance. — I DENY the minor premise. In the state in which we live, being advanced toward the supernatural order of grace and glory, venial sin is opposed not only to natural perfection but also to supernatural perfection, for example the fervor of charity and familiarity with God. Therefore it cannot be removed except through the fervor of divine charity and a supernatural act by which that familiarity with God is restored.

YOU WILL OBJECT FINALLY: Venial sin is merely an excessive attachment to creatures; but a person can naturally and without helps of grace remove this excessive attachment, namely by an act of love for God as Creator. Therefore a person can naturally, without the help of divine grace, obtain remission of venial sins. The major premise is established: venial sin does not overturn the order toward the ultimate end; through it the sinner only clings too much to a creature while preserving that end. The minor premise is also clear: in the state of pure nature, which we said in volume V, p. 69, was possible, there could have been venial sins; in that state, however, they could have been cleansed in no other way than through an act of love of God as Creator. — I DENY the minor premise. For that excessive attachment to creatures and delay in attaining the ultimate end is opposed not only to natural virtue but also to some supernatural perfection, namely the fervor of charity and a person’s familiarity with God. Consequently it cannot be removed except through some fervor of charity or another supernatural act that in some way turns a person away from creatures and toward God; and this turning cannot occur except through some supernatural help. In answer to its proof, I say, first, that it is doubtful whether there could truly have been any venial sins in the state of pure nature, for that state is called such especially because it is free from all sin and from the help of grace. Second, I say that if venial sins were perhaps committed in that state, they would have been of a different character from ours, since they would not then have been opposed to the fervor of charity and familiarity with God, as those committed now in the state of nature elevated to the supernatural order are. Therefore they could have been remitted through natural love of God as Creator or through an act of any natural virtue.

Third conclusion. — VENIAL SIN IS REMITTED EITHER AFTER DEATH OR AT THE INSTANT OF DEATH, IN VIEW OF PREVIOUS MERITS, BUT NOT BY REASON OF A MERITORIOUS ACT ELICITED ANEW.

This conclusion has three parts. The first is that venial sin can truly be remitted as to the debt of guilt in purgatory, after death, or at the instant of death; the second, that this remission occurs by reason of a preceding meritorious work; the third, that it does not occur in view of a meritorious act newly elicited.

The first part is taught not only by all theologians but also by the holy Fathers, and the Doctor expressly teaches it in the Reportata, d. 21, q. 1, n. 2: “In this question,” he says, “the conclusion is certain: some sin can be forgiven after death, not only as to punishment, because the punishment due for that sin was not paid here, but also as to the guilt itself. This is proved as follows: no one will be saved with any sin; but a person who remains with some venial sin can fall asleep and die while asleep, and likewise someone can sin venially up to the final instant in which the soul leaves the body. It is clear that this venial sin was never forgiven for a person dying in this way. Therefore either he would enter glory without remission of the guilt of such venial sin, or it will be remitted for him there. But he will not enter glory without remission of such venial sin, for ‘nothing defiled shall enter it,’ Revelation 21. Therefore it will be remitted for him there.”

The Master of the Sentences gathers the same opinion in bk. 1, d. 21, from Christ’s words in Matthew 12: “Whoever speaks” (a word) “against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this world or in the world to come.” From this, he says, it is understood, as the holy Doctors teach, that some sins will be forgiven in the world to come: some faults are remitted in this world, and some lesser ones in the future, which indeed burden people after death but are forgiven if they are worthy and have merited through good acts in this life that they be forgiven. Those Doctors are chiefly the holy Fathers, especially St. Augustine, The City of God, ch. 24, where he says: “For it would not truly be said of certain sins that they are not forgiven either in this world or in the world to come, unless there were some sins which, although not in this world, are nevertheless forgiven in the world to come.” St. Gregory the Great gathers the same in bk. 1 of the Dialogues, ch. 39, where, considering the aforesaid words of St. Matthew, he says: “In this statement it is understood that some faults can be loosed in this world, and others in the world to come. For from the denial concerning one kind, the consequent understanding is clear: it is granted concerning some.” St. Isidore teaches the same in Ecclesiastical Offices, ch. 18, as does St. Bernard, Sermon 16 on the Song of Songs, etc.

YOU WILL SAY 1: No just person can sin after death; therefore neither can he rise from the debt of sin. The antecedent is clear. The consequence is proved: both because the reason is the same for the power to sin and to rise from sin; both because it is easier to fall than to rise; and finally because rising from sin does not seem to belong to one who cannot merit, while one who cannot fall in any state cannot merit either. Therefore, etc. — The Doctor denies the consequence, In IV Sent., d. 21, q. 1, n. 11: “Understanding ‘rise’ to mean ‘be freed from sin.’” As to the first proof, he says that there is no likeness between being able to sin and rising from sin, because sinning is acting freely and pertains to the state of the way (understand this of sin that incurs demerit). For the Doctor teaches, In IV Sent., d. 2, q. 1, that “the damned will to sin, although through that sin they incur no new demerit; but rising, that is, becoming free from sin, does not require free action even in the state of the way, because according to the first opinion it is nothing other than paying a punishment, which is to suffer it; or, according to the second, it is nothing other than guilt now being forgiven through merits previously acquired in the state of the way and then accepted for this purpose.” Regarding the second proof of the consequence, he says: “I grant that it is easier to fall than to rise, insofar as rising denotes an act properly within the power of one who rises; but ‘rising’ is not understood in this way in this remission of venial sin.” Regarding the third proof, he says it falsely assumes that rising then occurs through a meritorious act of the will that is present at that time, whereas it occurs through a meritorious act that was previously present in life, according to the second opinion, or through no meritorious act at all, but only by suffering a punishment proportionate to that sin, according to the first opinion.

YOU WILL SAY 2: No mortal sin can be remitted after this life; therefore neither can venial sin. The consequence is clear: the reason for mortal and venial sin seems to be the same, since they differ only in degree, more or less. — The Doctor denies the consequence, n. 12: “Because merits acquired in life cannot be accepted at the instant of death so as to blot out mortal sin through them, since God ordained that mortal sin not be blotted out except through voluntary reception of a sacrament or through some disposition, as a merit of congruity, inhering at the time or up to the time when the sin is blotted out. It is otherwise for one who departs in mortal sin.” In answer to the proof of the consequence he responds that, although mortal and venial sin are sometimes opposed to the same virtue and deprive one of the same goodness in the order of nature or custom—physical or moral goodness—they do not deprive one of the same theological moral goodness. For by divine ordinance mortal sin is opposed to justifying grace and deprives one of divine friendship; venial sin is otherwise. Therefore it is no wonder if one is remitted after death but not the other.

YOU WILL SAY 3: Venial sin can be remitted through any punishment, and especially through the punishment of death; therefore none remains to be forgiven after death. — The Doctor responds, n. 13, that one may well grant that death voluntarily accepted is a sufficient punishment in place of the punishment for any venial sin, and perhaps in place of a large part of the punishment due for forgiven mortal sins. Nor is it an objection that death is a necessary punishment, since one can voluntarily accept what is necessary. This accords with what was said in the second opinion, that venial sin is blotted out at the instant of death. Hence he adds in the Reportata, final number, that death could be imposed on a thief as sacramental satisfaction: “And I believe,” he says, “that if the thief endured it willingly, his contrition and sorrow could be so great that he would fly up to heaven at once.”

The Doctor proves the second part, n. 8: “For,” he says, “one who dies in charity, although after death his meritorious works are not referred to the venial sin in which he dies, so that it may be remitted, and although he himself has no new meritorious act by which that venial sin is blotted out, nevertheless those works done earlier can be referred by God to the remission of this venial sin after death.” He proves this as follows: “An impedible cause, while impeded, does not produce its effect, but when it is not impeded, it does; but the merits of this person dying in charity would be a sufficient cause for blotting out his venial sins, either as referred to this by him or as accepted by God for this end. Yet they are impeded while he lives, if he continually remains in the act of venial sin; after death they are no longer impeded, because then he does not contract an act of venial sin. Therefore through those merits venial sins will be blotted out after this life, that is, at the instant of the soul’s separation.” From this he infers two things: “First, that venial sins are remitted at the instant of death, because then the act of venial sin no longer remains and consequently the impediment ceases. Second, that every venial sin of one dying in charity is remitted in this life unless he continues the act of venial sin up to death or to the instant of death.” By all this the Doctor means that, just as a just person merits glory through good works if he dies in grace, so too, if he departs in grace, he merits pardon for his slight offenses, without which he cannot attain the glory he merits. Therefore, by the merits acquired earlier in this life, he has a right to have his venial sins remitted after death or at the instant of death, provided that while he lives he does not take pleasure in them.

Finally, the third part is proved from Ecclesiastes, ch. 11: “If a tree falls to the south or to the north, wherever it falls, there it will be.” This signifies that after death there is no further place for merit or demerit, as all theologians who affirm that the state of this life alone is set apart for merit or demerit readily acknowledge. Hence the opinion of St. Thomas is refuted: in question 7 of On Evil, a. 11, he asserts that venial sins are remitted in purgatory through acts of contrition or charity by which the soul detests and retracts those sins. For it would follow that souls suffering in purgatory could still merit, the contrary of which theologians commonly teach.