Friar Kursawa's book on late antique and early medieval penitential literatures begins with an interesting observation, namely that penitence was first a means of reconciling sinners to God, and second, that it had medicinal purposes. Penance cancelled the effects of sins already committed and also discouraged the commission of the same sin in the future. Since much of the scholarly literature on antique and medieval atonement emphasizes their retributive role, Kursawa's observation is important and should be kept in mind when interpreting the penitentials. Unfortunately, the promise of the introductory remarks gets lost in the following chapters, which consist mostly of summaries of the material contained in the penitentials. While any historical treatment of theology must account for what the authors of the penitentials recommend, the relation of those excerpts to the main points must continually be pointed out, and that does not happen here.

The early church established the foundations of Christian atonement before God. Those who had sinned seriously were banned from communion with the church until they had confessed their sins. During the first centuries, sinners confessed to the bishop; in later centuries, priests heard most confessions. Having heard oral confession of sins, confessors then imposed penances on the penitent. The more serious the sin, the greater the penance in rigor and temporal duration. The penitentials, which seem first to have been compiled in sixth-century Ireland, consist of lists of sins with accompanying recommendations for penances. Very serious sins, such as homicide and adultery, called for long penances that required prayer and taking no more than bread and water for years. Kursawa points out that over the decades such penances often proved workable only in a monastic context; lay people, who had to labor for their livelihood, could not perform them, and so lesser works needed to be devised for them. While monks could pray and fast for years, the responsibilities of the laity demanded more lenient penances. The penitential literature was sensitive to the conditions of individual sinners. Penances were harsher for monks, whose way of life was founded on a vow to reject the temptations of the world by life in the cloister. In contrast, penances for the laity were more lenient because the laity confronted so many more temptations. Kursawa rightly points out the psychological sophistication with which the penitentials were written. That sophistication may easily get forgotten in what seems like rote lists of sins and penances.

Penitentials were known by their (reputed) authors, such as Cummean, Finnean, and Columbanus, all of whom apparently believed that to spare the rod was to spoil the monk. Kursawa emphasizes that these texts especially depended upon John Cassian's scheme of the eight vices, found both in his Institutes and Collations. The close relationship of monasteries to the laity, however, to say nothing of the evangelization efforts of Irish monks, meant that this literature soon gained admirers outside the confines of Hibernian cloisters, and so a later penitential has been credited to Theodore, the Syrian archbishop of Canterbury. Another important penitential of a later generation is the Ambrosian, the manuscript of which is named from the Milanese library. This text was probably produced at the monastery of Bobbio in northern Italy. Later penitentials, written in England and on the Continent, were noteworthy for their more lenient prescriptions.

Readers of Kursawa's book will weary of its numerous grammatical errors; his monograph should have been more rigorously edited. The clumsiness of the prose adds to its unreadability. His manuscript should have gotten a much more thorough editing before it was sent to press; alas, that was not the case. The book is not written in his mother tongue, and it shows.

Students of the penitential literature have generally agreed that we do not know how the penitentials were actually used; most discount the idea that while hearing confessions a priest would not have had a copy in his possession. Such a use would have been awkward, as the priest paused after every admission of sin to find the fitting penance. But Kursawa suggests another possibility that makes more sense, namely that confessors would have read selectively and in private in these books. When they did hear confessions, they would have used what they read to impose penances. While Kursawa's suggestion must remain speculative, it is thought-provoking and makes good sense when imagined in the context of the process of confession and atonement.

In sum, Healing not Punishment makes a very limited contribution to the subject. The summaries of the texts treated here may be found elsewhere, and the poor prose is a constant distraction. They overwhelm the few interesting observations that Kursawa makes here. Again, those observations also get lost in lengthy summaries of the texts. Perhaps those suggestions may yet prove the foundation of more rigorous studies of the penitential literature of the early Middle Ages.