Chapter I: Contrition (1)

10. Extent and Efficacy of Contrition.

The most prominent position among the acts of the penitent belongs to contrition.

According to the teaching of the Council of Trent contrition is a hearty sorrow and detestation for past sin together with a firm resolution to sin no more.[107]

We must investigate more closely the _essence_ of this contrition. Contrition is a hearty _sorrow_; this sorrow is interior; hence the prophet speaks of a rending of the heart (_scindite corda vestra_!—Joel ii. 13), and so contrition is called _contritio cordis_, a grinding of the heart. A merely external show of sorrow, the mere recital of an act of contrition, is therefore not a true sorrow. Moreover, since sorrow is a moral act and all moral acts proceed from the will, sorrow must have its roots in the will.

Many very different things may cause us great grief; for instance, the death of a dear relation, the loss of earthly goods, the failure of our plans and undertakings, the suffering of wrongs and affronts, experience of ingratitude and unkindness, a thoughtless word which one has uttered, a mere breach of etiquette that one has committed. Contrition, however, is grief of the soul for _past sin_.

The sins of others may cause us real and deep feelings of pain. What fervent Christian is unconcerned at the many sins which are daily committed and the many affronts offered to God? We are pained by them, but we cannot be contrite for them. We can have contrition only for the _sins which we have ourselves committed_—_de peccato commisso_, as the Council of Trent expresses it.

This being the case, sorrow as understood in this connection is not to be confused with:—

(_a_) Merely speculative sorrow (_dolor intellectivus_), _i.e._, the mere knowledge of the hatefulness and horror of sin. Reason when not blinded can recognize and must recognize clearly the hatefulness and wickedness of sin; yet in spite of this knowledge the will may cling to it and love it; indeed such cases are of frequent occurrence.

(_b_) Or the feeling of guilt or the remorse of conscience (_terrores conscientiæ_) which Luther taught to be of the essence of true sorrow. The feeling of guilt may be present without the help of our will, and even against our will. Remorse of conscience may be roused in us without our wishing it, and it may happen that we cannot allay it even when we wish to do so.

(_c_) Finally, the resolve to amend, the _resipiscentia_, and even the giving up of the sin is not of itself true sorrow; a man may forsake his sin merely because he has indulged in it to excess, because it has no longer any attraction for him, or because he has become tired of it.

True sorrow is not merely a pain and bitterness of heart; it is also a real hatred and horror of sin; but hatred and horror are acts of the will, for it is the will which hates and loves, shrinks from an object or embraces it. The will may shrink from sin at the same time that sensuality makes us crave for the sin; the will, however, must not give way to the craving.

Sorrow and detestation of sin are in themselves distinct, yet they are so bound up in man’s nature, that, where there is detestation there is necessarily also sorrow, so that true and efficacious sorrow for sin, as sin, cannot exist without detestation of the same.[108]

As to the question whether contrition lies more in sorrow for sin or in detestation of it—in other words, in dislike, hatred, and aversion—theologians answer that contrition is founded principally on detestation for sin, and with reason, for:—

(_a_) By this detestation the sinner retracts his evil will and turns towards God; this detestation is, moreover, the cause of sorrow. When, therefore, it is asserted that the sinner should above all have sorrow for his sins, and when by this is understood a sorrowful hatred of sin, this is correct, for in this case horror of sin is there with its complement. Moreover, we must not lose sight of St. Alphonsus’ dictum[109] that there is no reason to doubt that one sentiment includes the other; he who has a horror of his sins is sorry for them, and whoever is supernaturally sorry for them detests them.

Since contrition is the most important element in the disposition of the sinner, it is proper to give in detail the acts which belong to contrition, and to show how the sinner may attain to perfect contrition.

First and foremost, a preliminary act of faith and hope of obtaining pardon by the merits of Christ should be made. How can he repent of his sins who does not believe that there is a God and that God is offended by sin, who does not believe that God is faithful to His promises and merciful to sinners, and who does not hope that God will pardon him? These acts of faith and hope, though they need not be made _explicitly_, are the foundations of contrition; on them are built up the remaining elements which go to form the perfect act. These are:—

1. The knowledge of the hatefulness of sin as an offense against God, and of the awful punishments which the sinner incurs. This knowledge is necessary in order to acquire contrition, for the law of man’s nature makes him love and strive for what his reason proposes to him under the appearance of good, and hate and avoid what it presents as evil.

2. An act of the will, which desires to avoid the evil now known as such; on this follows:—

3. The hatred of past sins which have caused that evil, and the desire of undoing the sin committed. This desire, in the abstract, is only a velleity and quite inefficacious, for that which is done cannot be undone; but it is of efficacy in so far as it means a wish to undo, if it were possible, the sin by which God has been offended and punishment incurred.

4. From this hatred there arises in the rational appetite or in the will a sorrow and real distress that the sins have been committed; hence also follows:—

5. In the sensitive appetite, by picturing to ourselves the horror and evil consequences of sin, a certain hatred and sorrow, which may become so keen as to produce sighs and tears.

6. The resolve and firm determination never more to sin and offend God, or, what comes to the same thing, a resolution to observe faithfully and perfectly God’s commands.

7. Finally, there appears in the truly repentant sinner a willingness to render satisfaction to God for past sins, to chastise and punish himself, and to repair God’s honor.[110]

Contrition is either _perfect_ or _imperfect_[111] according as the sorrow and hatred arise from a motive of perfect love or of some supernatural motive which is inferior to perfect love. Since we understand here by love (_caritas_) the _amor benevolentiæ_, by which we love God above all things for His own sake, _i.e._ on account of His infinite perfections, we may define perfect contrition (_contritio_) as a sorrow and hatred for past sins together with a firm purpose never more to sin, because sin is an injury to God, who is loved above all things for His own sake.

Imperfect contrition (_attritio_) may be founded on many other supernatural motives; these are usually, as the Council of Trent declares, the fear of hell or punishment and the hatefulness of sin.[112] Thus imperfect contrition may be defined: sorrow and detestation of past sin with the determination never more to sin, because sin is an offense against God, who utterly abhors it on account of its hatefulness and avenges it with punishment. The thought of God, the supreme Lord of all, infinitely holy, to whom sin is detestable by its shamefulness, fills the sinner with confusion; the thought of God, who punishes sin with infinite justice, fills him with fear of the punishments of sin, and, impelled by this fear, he repents of having offended God by his sin.

Perfect and imperfect contrition coincide in this respect, that they are both a supernatural sorrow and hatred for sin regarded as an injury to God; they differ, however, specifically in this, that perfect contrition proceeds from perfect love of God, and imperfect contrition from a variety of other less noble motives; they also differ in their efficacy.[113]

11. The Essential Features of Perfect Contrition.

According to the unanimous teaching of theologians, which is based on the Council of Trent, perfect contrition proceeds from perfect love. The Council declares that contrition founded on _caritas_ is perfect; that, in consequence, its perfection depends on _caritas_; hence in order to acquire a complete grasp of the nature of perfect contrition we must investigate the nature of love, its degrees and kinds.

The love of God, of which only there is question here, has for its object God alone, and the motive of this love is similarly always God Himself. There are many aspects under which God may be presented to us as an object of love, and these aspects determine the different degrees of love. First of all there are two kinds of this love: _pure_ or _disinterested_ love, _amor benevolentiæ_ (_amicitiæ_), and selfish or _interested_ love (_amor concupiscentiæ_). God can be loved because He is most worthy of love, because He is good, because He is the highest good. If we love God for His own sake because He is most lovable _in Himself_ (_prout est in se summum bonum_), we have the first kind of love, the pure love of God; if we love Him on our own account because He is _for us_ the highest good (_prout nobis est summum bonum_), we have the second kind of love. The pure love of God is called perfect love, the other imperfect. If now we consider more closely the imperfect love of God, we find two degrees. God is here the object of love in as much as He is good to man, _i.e._ on the one hand God confers His benefits on man on earth and His everlasting possession in heaven completes the happiness of man hereafter, and on the other hand the loss of God means to man on earth unhappiness and suffering and in the next life the eternal punishment of hell. If a man disregards totally the idea of God as a person to be loved and keeps in view only his own selfish interests, he evidently loves only himself, thinking merely of his own present and future well-being, his own joys and sufferings, his own reward and punishment. Such a love, which hardly deserves the name, is downright selfishness and is rightly called a mercenary love (_amor mercenarius_). This love corresponds to the fear which is called _purely servile_, _timor serviliter servilis_, that fear which hates only the punishment and not the sin, which cherishes the inclination to sin, so that a man would sin if he did not fear punishment. Both love and fear of this kind belong to the lowest degree and destroy all supernatural merit and reward.

But there is an imperfect love of God in which man’s heart really turns to God simply because God is good to him, it is true, yet so that he loves Him efficaciously and really and regards the loss of God as the loss of all good and the greatest of misfortunes. Since in such a love of God there is mingled a great deal of the love of self, so that one love is not present without the other, it cannot yet be called the pure love of God, but receives a special name, the _love of chaste concupiscence_, _amor castæ concupiscentiæ_. To this love corresponds that fear of eternal punishment, which does not exclude the thought of God, which fears the punishment of hell because it is the loss of the vision of God, _i.e._ the _pœna damni_. This love is called also the _amor spei_, because in it the hope of possessing God in heaven, the highest reward of all pure souls, is an essential element.

A higher grade of love, midway between this perfect and imperfect love, is called the _love of gratitude_, _amor gratitudinis_, in which we love God for the benefits which He has conferred. When this love is prompted more by the thought of the gifts than the giver, more by the benefit than by the love of the benefactor, it approaches in quality to the love of hope (_amor spei_); one reflects on the past, the other on the future. If, however, the motive of this love of gratitude directly regards the giver and his good will towards mankind, then God is loved with a pure love, for God’s benevolence and love towards men are intimately united with His perfections. This kind of love of gratitude may well be classed with pure love or _caritas_. It is a perfect love (1) because God is loved for His own sake, on account of His infinite goodness and love and generosity, which are identical with God Himself; (2) because it is a benevolent love. All love in respect of its object is either selfish or benevolent; _now this love of gratitude is not selfish because it does not regard its own profit, nor does it strive to gain anything for itself_; (3) because it is a love of friendship, for it is a love which wishes well to Him who loves us and makes a return of love for love.[114]

A great number of distinguished theologians assert that the love of gratitude is perfect love, and the contrition based on it perfect contrition.[115] The Council of Trent might be adduced in favor of this view, since in Sess. 14, cp. 5, can. 4, it enumerates among the motives of imperfect contrition merely the hatefulness of sin and its punishment without the least reference to the motive of gratitude. It is of considerable moment to settle this point exactly, for, as Deharbe says, “a man might never know how to elicit an act of perfect contrition if he were to form a false notion of perfect love. Who can deny that in many cases salvation depends on an act of perfect contrition, and that even where it is possible to receive the Sacrament of Penance it is always advisable to make at least an effort to arouse not only imperfect but also perfect contrition?”[116]

We should be loath to omit the remark that the love of Christ crucified is an eminent incentive to perfect love, and that the sorrow for sin which is founded on the thought that sin was the cause of the awful sufferings and shameful death of Our Saviour, belongs to perfect contrition. A man who is well disposed towards Christ, believing Him to be God, has all that is required to arouse perfect love; and if, influenced by this love, he detests and determines to avoid all that brought such great suffering on Christ, he is exercising an act of perfect love and contrition.[117]

This love is most intimately connected with the love of gratitude, since “for our sins was He wounded and for our iniquities was He stricken.” Indeed nothing is so calculated to fill us with gratitude towards God as the thought of all that the Son of God has done and suffered for us. The crib, the cross, and the Sacraments are the three great monuments of His enduring love towards us, and at the same time they are the three inexhaustible founts of motives of our love for Him. Hence it is that the Church recalls to us so frequently these benefits of Christ. “When we meditate upon her ceremonies and practices, the spirit of her feasts and solemnities, her altars and temples, her prayers, the sense of the liturgies and the object of her devotions, our thoughts are compelled to consider the marvelous love of God and what Our Saviour has done and suffered for us, and we are reminded to be thankful to the Lord and to requite His love with our love.”[118]

From this love of gratitude, as the first stage on the way to pure love, we may ascend yet higher and attain to that entirely pure love by which we seek God as the highest good in Himself, as infinite beauty, as complete perfection, as the source of all goodness, beauty, and perfection, without reference, so far as that is possible, to our own profit. This love is shown by joy in God’s perfections (_amor complacentiæ_); the soul which has this love forgets itself and is lost in the object of its love for which alone it lives; its sole desire is God’s happiness (_amor benevolentiæ_), and it would willingly add to it (_amor desiderii_) but since such increase is impossible it rejoices in things as they are (_amor gaudii_).

It cannot be disputed that such a disinterested love is possible on earth, since many pious souls have had it in an eminent degree; still it must be observed that although the higher stages of love surpass and in surpassing absorb the lower, they do not eliminate them entirely; on the contrary, this pure love does not and cannot exclude the love of hope. It is the explicit teaching of the Church that love for God on earth cannot be so disinterested as to exclude all thought of ourselves and our eternal welfare.

This stage of love answers to filial fear (_timor filialis_) when one thinks no longer about punishment nor fears it, but dreads to give displeasure or offense to the beloved one and carefully avoids all that arouses the anger of God.

The sorrow arising from perfect love is therefore perfect sorrow, _contritio_. This, like unselfish love, may have varying stages of intensity[119] and may be more or less perfect; no special degree of intensity, however, is required, and the lowest is sufficient. It is only right and desirable, however, that we should have the greatest sorrow possible for our sins, penetrating soul and body, so that the whole man may repent of his faults and the tools of sin become again instruments of love.[120] This, however, is not always in our power, and, being a grace, we must ask for it.

We may now sum up our conclusions: Perfect contrition, _contritio_, is the hatred of sin proceeding from a pure love of God with a firm resolution of amendment, a disposition which includes filial fear, and, so far from excluding the hope of salvation and fear of punishment, tends rather to develop them.[121]

12. The Effects of Perfect Contrition and the Obligation of Procuring it.

Perfect contrition restores the sinner to grace at once, even before he has approached the Sacrament of Penance, though the desire of receiving the Sacrament is necessary; it removes the eternal punishment and in part the temporal punishment.

The first part of this statement is _fidei proxima_, for the Council of Trent teaches[122] that perfect contrition reconciles man to God before the Sacrament is received, but that this reconciliation by perfect contrition is not effected without the desire, which is included in the act of contrition, of receiving the Sacrament. This doctrine was confirmed by the condemnation pronounced by Gregory XIII and Urban VIII on the twenty-first and thirty-second of the propositions of Baius. Baius and Jansenius taught among other things that perfect contrition without the Sacrament cannot restore to grace unless in exceptional circumstances, _e.g._ in martyrdom, at the hour of death, when there is no possibility of confessing, or when it is _summe intensa_.

Finally, this doctrine of the efficacy of perfect contrition is clearly expressed in Holy Scripture and in the monuments of tradition; the proofs belong to the domain of dogmatic theology.[123] We add only a single consideration which springs from a well-known principle: Perfect contrition arises from love and is in its essence nothing but an act of love. Now perfect love unites us to God, so that we live in Him and He in us.[124] This perfect union with God overcomes all separation from Him which arose through sin.

Such, then, is the effect of perfect contrition, however poor and weak it may be, for in spite of this it is a sorrow which is inspired and informed by perfect love. Nor does a greater or less degree change the species; the Council of Trent is positive in its declaration that perfect contrition reconciles us to God, and assigns no limit which must be attained before producing this effect. Such, too, is the unanimous teaching of St. Thomas,[125] St. Alphonsus,[126] and the other great theologians.

The sinner is restored to grace by perfect contrition without the Sacrament only when he has the intention of receiving it, for the actual, or at least intentional, reception of the Sacrament is the one single means ordained by Christ for the removal of mortal sin. This intention is included in the act of perfect contrition, as the Council of Trent goes on to teach; hence all theologians hold that the implicit desire (_votum implicitum_) is sufficient, for whoever has true contrition has the wish to fulfill all the commands of God, and hence the command of Christ enjoining the confession of sin.[127] Perfect contrition is an act of perfect love, and this urges man to fulfill the commands of God in accordance with Christ’s words: “He who loves Me will keep My word.”[128] Hence it may happen that a sinner is justified by an act of perfect contrition without any actual confession; it is sufficient that he does not exclude the purpose of confessing his sin.[129]

The resolution to confess the sin does not include the resolution to confess it _as soon as possible_ (_quam primum_). It is enough to confess when a precept of God or of the Church urges.[130]

The other effect of perfect contrition, the remission of eternal punishment, follows from what we have been already considering; moreover the condemnation of Baius’ seventieth proposition makes this doctrine _proxima fidei_. This, too, is the teaching of all Catholic theologians.[131] The guilt is removed by sanctifying grace; but one who has sanctifying grace is a child of God, and has as his heritage a claim to heaven.

Finally, we gather from the Council of Trent[132] and the common doctrine of theologians[133] that a part also of the temporal punishment of sin, in proportion to the intensity of contrition, is remitted, so that a very great and perfect contrition may blot out all the temporal punishment.

Two very _practical_ remarks, applicable both to confessor and to penitent, may find their place here.

Mortal sin is not forgiven, and the sinner is not reconciled to God, till he has made good the injury done to God; in other words, till he has done penance. This is a truth of faith.[134] It follows, then, that he who has the misfortune to fall into sin is obliged to repent of it, and in such wise as to obtain forgiveness; to adopt any other course is to frustrate the whole end of his existence. He must therefore make an act of perfect contrition, or supplement the imperfect contrition by the Sacrament of Penance.

This obligation is certainly pressing when there is danger of death, because it is the necessary means for salvation, and every man is bound by love of God and of himself to take precautions against being forever an enemy of God and of being involved in eternal damnation.

The question now arises whether on other grounds there is a strict obligation of making an act of perfect contrition, for instance, from the consideration of God who has been offended, or for our own interests, since we may die at any moment, and because one who is in a state of mortal sin is but little capable of avoiding other mortal sins.

The following answer may be given:—

1. God might have insisted that the sinner should make good at once after his sin the evil committed, and the injury done to God by mortal sin would be quite motive enough for such legislation. As a matter of fact God does not make any such demand; instead of insisting on His rights, He is long-suffering and permits the sinner to heap offense on offense.

On the other hand, a man cannot remain long in mortal sin without offending God again and once more incurring sin; for it is an insult to the love we owe to God to remain long a slave of the devil and an enemy of God, and such behavior on the part of the sinner makes him guilty of contempt of God’s friendship and rights. To incur, however, grievous sin in this way, the neglect to make an act of perfect contrition must have extended over a considerable time. As to what constitutes a considerable time, it is not easy to define a hard-and-fast limit; a period of several years would certainly be considerable, and it would be a grave sin to remain so long a time in the state of mortal sin; but a man who reconciles himself to God within the limits of the time prescribed by the Church for confession would certainly not incur a new sin _per se_, special circumstances, of course, being excluded which might demand that an act of perfect contrition be made at once.[135]

The possibility of dying before being reconciled to God is certainly a very strong motive to induce a man to consult the safety of his soul and to free it as soon as possible from the state of mortal sin; for at any moment death may surprise a man without warning. If, however, there be no pressing danger of death, that possibility is not sufficient to make delay of reconciliation a new sin; hence one who dies a sudden death may be plunged into hell by sins for which he had not atoned, but he would not be guilty of a new sin by having put off his repentance.

But there is an obligation to avoid putting off for a long time one’s conversion, and hence an act of perfect contrition after mortal sin, because a man in the state of mortal sin is in the greatest danger of falling into other mortal sins, since he has not strength enough to vanquish severe temptations and to withstand the violence of his passions, and since, as St. Gregory the Great[136] says, the unrepented mortal sins which burden his soul draw him by their weight into other worse sins. “Without sanctifying grace it is not possible to refrain long from mortal sin,” says St. Thomas;[137] the sinner might, if he wished, have the necessary moral strength to overcome temptation and to resist his passions; he might curb them by the divine power of grace; but there is the law of the distribution of God’s graces, that God gives only to those who love Him efficacious grace, and while a man persists of his own free will in the state of sin and enmity with God, he equivalently expresses his contempt of grace and so makes himself unworthy of it. As God is ever pouring richer and richer graces on those who make good use of them and coöperate with them, so He withdraws them from those who neglect and resist them. Hence we may adopt the well-founded teaching of St. Alphonsus,[138] who states that the sinner ought not to put off for longer than a month his reconciliation with God; in other words, that the act of perfect contrition should not be delayed beyond that time. By such delay he would incur a new sin. This subject, moreover, is intimately connected with the duty of eliciting the act of love; for according to a very probable opinion of many theologians, of whom the authority is recognized and approved by St. Alphonsus, we are bound to elicit at least once a month an act of love, because we should keep God’s commands either not at all or at least with great difficulty if we failed for so long a time to elicit such an act, and if we were so little solicitous about our duty of loving God. It is impossible to make an act of perfect love without bewailing one’s sins by which a God so infinitely worthy of love has been offended. Hence St. Alphonsus in his practical directions to confessors says:[139] “The duty of making an act of contrition is urgent when one is obliged to make an act of love.”[140]

Since the faithful for the most part are ignorant of any obligation of making an act of perfect contrition within a given time after falling into mortal sin, and, therefore, incur no sin by the non-fulfillment of it, the confessor need not trouble himself to make inquiries about it in the past life of his penitents; indeed he may abstain from instructing them on the existence of such obligation. But he should not fail—without, however, mentioning that neglect means a new sin—to urge his penitents by other motives to return to a state of grace, for the future, as quickly as possible after falling into mortal sin, at least by an act of perfect contrition, and, if occasion offer, by going to confession. Sad experience shows that one fall into mortal sin is very soon followed by others.[141]

Finally, there is an obligation (_per accidens_) to awaken perfect contrition when one has to exercise some act for which a state of grace is required and the Sacrament of Penance is not accessible. A priest, for instance, is in a state of mortal sin and is called upon to administer one of the Sacraments, or one of the faithful has to receive one of the Sacraments of the living and cannot get absolution beforehand. This also holds true if an act of perfect love has to be made; in this case every one is obliged, when there occurs to his mind a mortal sin not yet repented of, to detest the same and to be sorry for it from the motive of the love of God. According to the general opinion of theologians an act of love should be made in the hour of death, whence St. Alphonsus teaches that a dying man who has confessed with only imperfect sorrow should be recommended to elicit an act of perfect contrition, for it is impossible to make an act of love without bewailing the sins from the same motive of love.[142] Finally, this duty is pressing when one is exposed to severe temptations which cannot be overcome while one is in a state of enmity with God.

We would add another observation: Since perfect contrition is so pleasing to God and so helpful to those sinners especially who have fallen seriously, the pastor of souls should seize every opportunity of instructing the faithful and urging them to elicit such acts frequently, especially when they are in danger of death and have no opportunity of approaching the Sacrament of Penance. Children particularly should be taught on this subject, and a good form of the act given to them. They may have need of it themselves in order to be saved from eternal damnation, and they may come to the assistance of their elders at the hour of death; indeed experience teaches that well-instructed children more than once have reminded people in such straits of the act of perfect contrition, and have persuaded those persons to make it with them; finally, what has been learned in childhood will turn out useful to many in their old age.

13. Imperfect Contrition.

The effects of imperfect contrition (_attrition_) are not so great as those of perfect contrition. Imperfect contrition, which excludes the desire of sinning and includes the hope of pardon (this belongs to the sorrow necessary for the Sacrament of Penance), is the proximate disposition which the sinner must have if he is to be justified in the Sacrament of Penance. This is of faith.[143]

Passages almost innumerable of the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, decrees of Councils and theologians, present this doctrine as revealed by God.[144]

Consequently it is the common and certain teaching of theologians that to receive the grace of the Sacrament of Penance imperfect contrition is sufficient, and that perfect contrition is not of necessity. The Council of Trent declares expressly: “Although imperfect contrition without the Sacrament of Penance is not able _per se_ to restore the sinner to justifying grace, yet it disposes him for the reception of grace in this Sacrament.” The Council is speaking here of the ultimate or proximate disposition which, in union with the Sacrament, suffices for the remission of sin; for it opposes the efficacy of imperfect contrition with the Sacrament to its inefficacy without the Sacrament. Without the Sacrament it cannot produce justification, but disposes towards its reception in the Sacrament; it must therefore produce in the Sacrament this justification, and the disposition of which the Council speaks must be understood of the proximate disposition which is immediately followed by grace; otherwise the contrast drawn between the two would have no meaning.

This conclusion is confirmed when we consider the institution of the Sacrament. Christ’s object in instituting this Sacrament was to restore the baptized to the life of grace; if it did not really confer the grace of justification, it would have been a means frustrated of its end, and would not have the power which it was intended to have; it could not be expected to call for dispositions which of themselves would atone for sin, and this would be the case if perfect contrition were the required disposition. A remedy for a disease would be a poor gift if it could not cure the disease until the latter was already removed. Finally, the Church received the power of the keys in order that it might loose or retain sins; if perfect contrition were required as the necessary condition, the sins would not be remitted by the power of the keys, but by the dispositions of the penitent. Therefore imperfect contrition is sufficient for justification in the Sacrament of Penance.[145]

Since imperfect contrition in union with the Sacrament has the same effects as perfect contrition without the Sacrament, theologians say that the penitent becomes in the Sacrament _ex attrito contritus_; this expression is not to be understood of the act, as though _attritio_ became _contritio_.

Imperfect contrition, as we have already seen, arises from the thought of the hideousness of sin and from the _fear_ of the punishment which God in His justice inflicts on the sinner. The following are the classes into which, according to St. Thomas,[146] fear is divided:—

1. Worldly fear, _timor mundanus_, when man is feared more than God, or when one offends God in order to avoid suffering.

2. Natural fear, _timor naturalis_, the fear of temporal misfortunes.

3. Slavish fear, _timor serviliter servilis_, when one shrinks from sin merely from fear of punishment, and when one is ready to sin again if there were no punishment. Theologians say of such a man: _solum manum cohibet, voluntatem autem non retrahit a peccato_.

Quite distinct from this fear is:—

4. Servile fear, _timor servilis_, when a man fears the punishments which God inflicts on sin, and on that account really avoids and detests sin: _qui non solum manum sed etiam voluntatem cohibet a peccato_, as the schoolmen express it.

5. Filial fear, _timor filialis seu castus_, is the fear of a man who honors and loves God as his Lord and Father, and from that motive avoids sin and loves the law of God. The last two kinds of fear conjoined form:—

6. Mixed fear, _timor mixtus seu initialis_, which is the disposition of a man who fears sin because it offends God and also because it is punished. Hence St. Thomas gives a clear and short account of these last three kinds of fear: Sometimes man turns to God and clings to Him because he is afraid of evil. This evil may be twofold, the evil of punishment and the evil of guilt. If a man turn and cling to God from fear of punishment, this is servile fear; and when it is done from fear of guilt it is filial fear, for children are afraid of offending their father; if, however, it is done from the fear of the punishment and of the guilt, it is then _timor initialis_, which is intermediate between servile and filial fear.[147]

The sorrow proceeding from servile fear is _attritio_, that imperfect sorrow which, when it excludes the desire of sinning and is joined to the hope of pardon, disposes the sinner to receive the grace of justification in the Sacrament of Penance. It may now be asked whether, along with this imperfect sorrow based on fear as its only motive, there may not be required besides, in order to dispose the sinner _proxime_ for the receiving of grace, some sort of love, at least initial, or whether this love be included in that sorrow. On this subject the Council has given no direct answer. In the seventeenth century this question was debated with such heat that Alexander VII (June, 1667), in order to establish peace, forbade, in the strongest terms and under pain of excommunication _latæ sententiæ_, that any of the disputants in this matter should accuse their opponents of heresy. Four distinct views were proposed and defended on this subject:—

1. The first view teaches that sorrow from the motive of fear, as long as it is true sorrow, is quite sufficient of itself for obtaining sanctifying grace in the Sacrament. This sorrow produces hatred and detestation of sin and a return to God’s law, and is inseparable from the hope of pardon. Hence the sinner becomes capable of receiving the grace of the Sacrament. Melchior Canus is the most famous of the defenders of this view, who are called Attritionists because they hold that mere attrition from the fear of the punishments inflicted on sin is a sufficient disposition. They thought that every sort of love was excluded from this contrition based on fear, a position which seems impossible both psychologically and in view of the action of grace; as was evidently the general opinion of the Fathers at the Council of Trent. Instead of the present clause in cap. 4: _attritio eum ad gratiam in sacramento pœnitentiæ impetrandam disponit_, another had been presented to them: _ad constitutionem sacramenti sufficit, ac donum Dei esse ac Spiritus S. impulsum verissimum non adhuc quidem inhabitantis sed tantum moventis quo pœnitens adjutus_ (_cum sine aliquo dilectionis in Deum motu esse vix queat_) _viam sibi ad justitiam munit et per eam ad Dei gratiam facilius impetrandum disponitur_. Since it was urged that men of eminent learning made a distinction between such sorrow and love, the present form of the clause was chosen in order to avoid defining a scholastic question on which the Doctors were not of one mind; by using the word _disponit_ the Council did not wish to mean a sufficient disposition, and to indicate this more clearly it purposely avoided the use of the word _sufficit_.[148]

2. The second opinion holds that the sorrow based on fear is sufficient only when there is joined with it some beginning of the love of God, as our highest good. This view supported by the most eminent theologians rests on solid foundations, and is now the more usual opinion among theologians. That there is nothing in this view opposed to the Council of Trent is clear from what has been said above on this point. In another place in the Sixth Session (cap. 6) there is indirect authority for it, where the Council, in describing the progress towards preparation for the first grace, teaches that the sinner who is disposing his soul for justification must begin to love God as the source of all justice.[149]

Hence as preparation for the first justification of adults a beginning at least of love is required. Now what is required for their first justification in Baptism, that, at the very least, is demanded for the second justification by Penance, since, as the Fathers express it, Penance is a toilsome Baptism, _baptismus laboriosus_; consequently if a distinction is to be made in terms of greater or less, greater dispositions are required for Penance than for Baptism. Moreover, the Council is unmistakably clear in its declaration that what it teaches with regard to the first justification applies equally to the justification by penance.[150]

In the place where the Council treats of the sorrow required as a preparation for the Sacrament of Penance, it speaks of it plainly as the beginning of a new life;[151] such it could not be if it did not include love, or at least the beginnings of love; for since the new life consists in the love of God, the beginning of the new life must of necessity include the beginning of the love of God.[152]

A third reason may be found in the very nature of the subject. According to the Church’s teaching, the justification of an adult means a real conversion, and this of itself includes a beginning of love. By mortal sin man turns from God to the creature; if the conversion is to be real, he must not only turn away from the creature, but also return to God, and that cannot happen without some initial love. Moreover, it is in the very nature of man ever to desire and love something as his highest good, be it the creature, as happens in mortal sin, or the Creator; since by his conversion he ceases to make the creature his sole object and aim, he must direct his desires to God the uncreated good, and so must love God at least as his highest good.

But this love which is required to accompany imperfect contrition in order to make it a sufficient disposition for obtaining grace in the Sacrament, is not the beginning of the _amor benevolentiæ_ or the _caritas perfecta_ or perfect love; for, as has been seen above, any act of contrition proceeding from perfect love in any degree at once restores a man to grace without the reception of the Sacrament; similarly the beginning of perfect love, joined with imperfect contrition, would justify the sinner without the Sacrament.[153] Penance would thus be a meaningless institution. It is rather the beginning of the _amor concupiscentiæ_ or of the _caritas imperfecta_, in which we love God because He is good to us. This beginning of love is included in imperfect contrition, which arises chiefly from the fear of God’s punishments; for Holy Scripture (Ecclus. xxv. 16) calls the fear of God the beginning of love. Hope of eternal happiness is another motive, for, as St. Thomas of Aquin says, when we hope to obtain a benefit from any one we are drawn towards him and begin to love him. Whoever, then, has imperfect contrition and receives the Sacrament in the hope of pardon, already begins to love God as his liberator, his champion, his Lord. No special intensity is required in this love; it need only be the beginning of love, as long as the love is real—and this is called _amor initialis_.[154]

3. A third opinion demands, not a beginning of imperfect love, but perfect love in its first stages, that is, _caritas initialis_. It need not, however, be so strong as to suffice to remove sin of itself, nor need it be independent of other motives, such as servile fear. Such sorrow, however, would be no longer _attritio_, but _contritio_, which in any degree by itself justifies the sinner apart from the Sacrament.

4. The fourth opinion goes yet further and requires that along with _attritio_ there should be not only pure love, but in such measure that of itself it should move the sinner to bewail his sins and give them up. This is of its nature _contritio_, whence the defenders of this last opinion are called contritionists.[155]

This question is not one of mere theoretical interest, but is of highly practical application; for if the acts of the penitent are the _materia proxima_ of the Sacrament, and if it is the confessor’s duty to make certain of the presence of these acts before giving absolution, he must do so also with respect to contrition; for this reason he must study the nature and properties of contrition in order to secure the integrity of the Sacrament.

From this it is at once apparent that the contritionist must proceed differently from the attritionist. The former will, if he is true to his principles, not only investigate whether the penitent’s sorrow for sin be joined with belief and hope of pardon, but also whether that sorrow proceed from the love of God, or at least the beginning of it, which love must be a love of God above all things. This investigation, however, is very difficult, and wearisome to confessor and penitent, at least if the latter be uninstructed. The attritionist, on the contrary, merely inquires whether his penitent has sorrow springing from a motive of faith and the hope of forgiveness; this inquiry offers no difficulty to either confessor or penitent. Once it is established that the sorrow comes from a motive of faith and is joined to the hope of pardon, one may fairly presume and conclude that there is _amor initialis_, so that further investigation is superfluous; for if we hope for good from any one, we have already at least a beginning of love for him.

Moreover, the confessor will observe that since the view requiring a beginning of love with imperfect contrition is more probable than the opposite, _probabilitate externa et interna_, it is also the safer; since, however, in giving and receiving the Sacraments an explicit papal decision enjoins the adoption of the safer view, it is not only of counsel but of precept, strongly binding, to elicit before receiving the Sacrament of Penance together with contrition an act of love, if only initial love. Though the initial love which is comprised in the imperfect contrition is not the love of benevolence or _caritas_, but the _amor concupiscentiæ_, yet _caritas_ is in no way excluded from it, and cannot be excluded without grievous sin on the part of the penitent. Would it not be the sign of a bad disposition if a man were expressly unwilling to avoid sin if it did not deprive him of heaven or lead him to hell? “I do not say,” says St. Francis de Sales on this subject, “that this sorrow excludes the perfect love of God; I say only that it does not of its own nature include it; it neither rejects it nor embraces it; it is not opposed to love, but it can exist without it.”

Thus imperfect contrition disposes the penitent towards perfect love. Any one who desires and hopes to attain so great a boon as the grace of God, all unmerited as it is, will certainly be unable to refrain from meditating on the infinite love which procures him this great grace, and from that he will rise to the love of God for His own sake as infinitely good and lovable. Hence St. Thomas says that whenever a man hopes to get a benefit from God he is led to love God for His own sake only.[156]

We add one more practical observation: The imperfect contrition arising from fear of hell, which excludes the desire of sin, and in which is contained at least virtually the hope of pardon, is quite sufficient to secure the fruit of the Sacrament of Penance; yet we ought to take pains that we have, as far as possible, perfect contrition, not only because this is more pleasing to God, but also because in this way the grace is made more certain and more grace is obtained and a greater measure of the temporal punishment remitted; because we are thus more sure of attaining true and necessary attrition, and finally, because we fulfill in this manner the precept which binds us to make, from time to time during our lives, an act of love. Indeed if a penitent chose to dwell only on the lowest motives of contrition, it would be a sign that his heart was not sufficiently fixed upon God, and there would be occasion for suspecting that there still lurked in his soul an undue affection for sin, curbed only by fear of punishment.[157]

14. The Necessary Qualities of Contrition.

If the Sacrament of Penance is to be received validly and with fruit, the contrition must be real, formal, supernatural, universal, supreme, and sacramental.[158]

1. First of all, the contrition must be real or genuine. Now contrition is, according to the Council of Trent, a grief of the soul and a horror of sin. A sorrow expressed only in words would be a sham sorrow; that would not do: a real sorrow is required. A sorrow merely imaginary, even without guilt on the part of the penitent, in which case his good faith would certainly save him from the guilt of a sacrilege, could not possibly supply for the want of a necessary and essential part of the Sacrament.[159] Hence God’s command by the prophet Joel: _Scindite corda vestra et non vestimenta vestra_—Rend your hearts and not your garments (the sign of mourning; Joel ii. 3). And truly it is meet that sorrow should begin there where sin had its origin, namely, in the heart; for from the heart, as the Scripture tells us, come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, etc.[160]

The contrition must be formal, _i.e._ explicit; a virtual or implicit contrition, such as is contained in another act, say in an act of love or the resolution to confess and receive absolution, is not enough even though it excludes the affection towards sin.

Thus a penitent might conceivably elicit an act of perfect love without making any act of contrition, and then, after confessing his sins, be justified in virtue of the act of perfect love, though he would not validly receive absolution if he confined himself to the act of love. The contrition must be quite explicit, for it is the essential matter of the Sacrament, and virtual matter here would be about as practical as virtual bread and wine in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Hence it is not enough to say: “I love thee, O my God, above all things, because thou art the sovereign good; forgive me my sins.” Such words are only an act of love and a prayer for pardon, not a formal act of sorrow. The words must be explicit: “I am sorry for my sins.”[161]

Hence we see the error in the opinion held by several of the older theologians, who called attrition any kind of sorrow which did not come up to the standard of perfect contrition by want of an adequate motive of sorrow, or through deficiency of resolution of amendment, or because sin was not shunned as the greatest of evils.

Others besides have conjectured that it was necessary and sufficient for absolution in the Sacrament that the penitent believes he had contrition, _i.e._ that he ought to make efforts to be contrite and to believe that he has perfect contrition; such a putative sorrow, according to them, was sufficient, however distinct it might be from the sorrow of perfect contrition.

Both views are false. If imperfect contrition were only a velleity, instead of being a real horror of sin, it would not be sufficient for the Sacrament, and such sorrow could never be called genuine attrition. On the contrary, any sorrow which has the properties enumerated above is sufficient even if the penitent knowingly confine his efforts to imperfect contrition without aspiring to perfect it.[162]

There were also some theologians who maintained as a probable opinion that the virtual sorrow included in a formal act of love or in a resolution of amendment was sufficient. This view is stigmatized by Suarez as rash, by Vasquez as false. Other theologians, however, consider that this condemnation is too severe.

On this question Reuter[163] remarks that a penitent need not be worried about the formal act of sorrow if he has elicited an act of perfect love while reflecting on his sins (_memor peccatorum_), for it is morally impossible for any one with his sins before his eyes to elicit an act of perfect love of God without detesting his sins. The same may be said with regard to the purpose of amendment, for it is morally impossible to form it without having formal sorrow. This is made clear from the consideration of any practical resolution which is based on supernatural motives; for if the hatred of sin is not yet a formal detestation and sorrow of past sin, it becomes so in any one who reflects that he has been guilty of sin.[164]