I tried to post this here ... maybe it will find its way through the blogowner's approval at some point ... but I read this ten years ago, almost exactly, and it made an impression:

In 1870 the First Vatican Council had been ready to define satisfaction as a dogma of the Church when political events in Italy caused the council to be suspended indefinitely. In thesis sixteen [Bernard] Lonergan clarifies the meaning of this traditional doctrine. Negatively it does not mean that Jesus' death saves us as payment of the penalty for sin in our place. Neither Anselm nor Thomas, nor the Catholic tradition in general understands satisfaction in terms of penal substitution. Nor does the doctrine of satisfaction mean that Jesus' death was a sacrifice that appeased God's wrath. God does not take pleasure in innocent suffering. Rather, a correct understanding of the theory of satisfaction finds its key in an analogy with the sacrament of reconciliation. Through this analogy Jesus' death comes into focus as an expression of his revulsion at sin and love for God - not as an instance of divine child abuse!

Loewe's intro Christology, 166.