Chapter II: The Purpose of Amendment

16. Necessity and Nature of the Purpose of Amendment.

According to the decision of the Council of Trent, as we have seen above, the resolution to amend as well as contrition is required for the valid reception of the Sacrament. With a true sorrow for sin is always conjoined the resolution to avoid it, so that we may say with regard to past sins sorrow means grief and horror, with regard to the future it means the resolution to amend. For instance, a man who hates the sin he has committed, because it is sin and in so far as it is sin, _i.e._ because it is an offense against God and the greatest misfortune which can befall a mortal, naturally extends that sorrow to everything which involves sin, and so to the sins of the future, since they offer the same grounds for hatred as the rest.

Now amendment is effected by the deliberate intention never to sin again for the future. A distinction is drawn between the express or formal resolve (_propositum explicitum seu formale_), as when, for example, a man thinks upon his future life and resolves to sin no more, and the implicit resolve contained in the sorrow (_propositum implicitum seu virtuale_); the latter is present when a man, without thinking upon his future life, repents of his sin in such wise that, if asked whether he intends for the future to avoid sin, he would most certainly answer in the affirmative.

It is a disputed point among theologians whether for the validity of confession an express (formal) resolve is necessary or one included in the act of contrition (a virtual resolve) is sufficient. Some teach absolutely (very few, however) that an express resolve is necessary, and appeal to the Council of Trent as requiring this condition, since, after defining the act of contrition, it adds the words: _Cum proposito non peccandi de cætero_.[188]

This argument is successfully invalidated by Cardinal Lugo,[189] who, in addition, brings convincing testimony that the very opposite conclusion may be drawn from the teaching of the Council. Since, moreover, as Ballerini shows in his notes on Gury’s text, only a very few theologians adopt that view, it can hardly lay any claim to probability.[190]

Other theologians teach absolutely that an express purpose of amendment is not necessary if the contrition proceed from a universal motive;[191] an implicit resolution is sufficient, and Lugo calls this opinion _communis inter recentiores_. Indeed most of the theologians endorse it. Ballerini cites seventy-three by name, with the passages in which they express their views.[192] It is also founded on solid intrinsic grounds, for, according to the doctrine of the Council (_loco citato_), attrition which excludes the desire of sinning is sufficient for the valid reception of the Sacrament; but, as we have seen, attrition excludes the desire of sinning, even when there is no formal purpose of amendment, for it detaches the heart of man from sin, and not only from past sin but from all sin.[193]

Finally, there are theologians who distinguish and say: If a penitent advert to the future, he must make a formal resolution to amend; if, however, as in the case of the dying, no thought of the future occurs to him, a formal resolution is not necessary; for it is hardly possible that a penitent who is really sorry for his sins and thinks upon the future should fail to make an express and formal resolve to amend. Yet this may very well happen, as Ballerini observes, to pious people, especially to such as are careful to avoid even slight deliberate venial sins, and are accustomed to make acts of sorrow for defects and to start afresh on the right way; for in them the resolution to avoid sin is not made just for the time when they prepare for confession, but it is rather an enduring habit of mind. Hence it is not matter of surprise that they should not think of renewing and confirming their resolution. Suarez makes this clear when, in speaking of perfect contrition, he asks whether an act of perfect love suffices for justification, or whether also an act of sorrow for sin be necessary; he replies that _per se_ both are required, but that _per accidens_ the act of perfect love suffices, for whoever makes an act of perfect love is undoubtedly restored to grace; but that if a man be conscious of sin, he is in duty bound to reëstablish his right relation to God and to make a formal and explicit act of displeasure and hatred with regard to the sin; to neglect this duty would prove that he had no real love. In a similar way the sinner who mourns for his past sins is naturally prompted to make a resolution of avoiding sin; hence the voluntary neglect of the purpose of amendment renders the act of contrition very suspicious.[194]

After exposing the three views which have divided theologians on this point, St. Alphonsus concludes: The last two views are certainly the more probable; but since the first has also a certain probability, it must in practice be followed _ante factum_. He holds that a penitent would be obliged to repeat his confession if he had confessed in good faith without an express purpose of amendment, though with real contrition such as would include a virtual purpose; his argument being that, since the first opinion is sufficiently probable, a penitent who had certainly incurred mortal sin is bound to avow the same in a confession that was certainly and not merely probably valid.[195] Now, as we have shown above, the first opinion can hardly lay claim to any probability, though the holy Doctor concedes it as such mainly because he was misled by Lacroix into believing that he had distinguished authorities on his side. Besides, St. Alphonsus teaches in another part of his Moral Theology (l. c. n. 505) that the penitent should not be obliged to repeat his confession unless there be a moral certainty of its invalidity—a doctrine quite in accordance with the _sententia communis_ and with excellent reason maintained by Lacroix, Gobat, etc., in opposition to Antoine, one of the most conspicuous rigorists of his time.

In the case under consideration it may be decided with moral certainty that a confession made with a virtual purpose of amendment is rather valid than invalid, especially since, according to St. Alphonsus himself, the champions of all these opinions unite in declaring that a confession made without an express resolution of amendment need not be repeated, for they would certainly have decided for the repetition if they had thought such a confession invalid. Hence theologians deny _communissima sententia_ that a formal purpose of amendment (if the contrition is based on a universal motive) is necessary _necessitate sacramenti_; they admit that confessions are valid without the express purpose of amendment. Add to this that St. Alphonsus in his _Homo Apostolicus_ taught that confessions made with only a virtual purpose of amendment need not be repeated.[196]

We conclude with the following principles:—

1. In order to receive the Sacrament validly and to share in its essential effects, a virtual or implicit purpose of amendment is sufficient if the sorrow proceed from a universal motive.

2. If confession has been made without a formal and express purpose of amendment, there is no obligation to repeat the confession as though it had been invalid.

3. The faithful should be taught and urged to make a formal resolution of amendment in the course of their preparation for confession.

The reason of this last prescription is not so much to be found in any doubt with regard to confessions made without the express purpose of amendment, but to secure a more abundant fruit from the Sacrament. We shall certainly with the grace of God make more earnest endeavors to avoid sin and to reform if we expressly, deliberately, and with all our heart resolve to avoid sin. Indeed, as Lehmkuhl justly observes, apart from the grace of the Sacrament and the instruction and advice of our confessor, the frequent reception of this Sacrament serves to secure us against relapse, for our wills need a frequent stimulus to remain firm in the hatred of sin. Not infrequently one cause of our relapses is a weak purpose of amendment.[197]

17. Properties of the Purpose of Amendment.

The purpose of amendment must have the three following properties: it must be absolute or firm, efficacious, and universal. We shall consider these properties in detail.

The purpose of amendment must, first of all, be _firm_, answering to the contrition which detests sin above all other evils; so that a man under no circumstances, neither through fear of any evil or love of any good will think of swerving from his resolve. Thus the purpose of amendment is not a velleity, not a mere wish or a vague desire; it must be an absolute, fixed determination never to sin again; otherwise the penitent would not really detest sin nor really and thoroughly turn to God.

The resolution must then be so fixed that the penitent is resolved to overcome all the difficulties which may oppose its execution. The confessor will prudently refrain from placing before the penitent all the difficulties which will have to be faced in keeping the resolution or from revealing to the penitent all his obligations, if the latter be _bona fide_ ignorant of them; “for,” says Suarez, “he might expose the penitent to the obvious danger of making no resolution, but rather of sinning again.” It is enough, continues the great theologian, if the confessor pictures to the penitent in general terms the hatefulness of sin, the goodness of God, the danger of eternal damnation, etc., and that the penitent in consequence of the exhortation forms a general resolution never to fall again into mortal sin.[198] The advice which Cardinal Cajetan gives to confessors is in much the same strain: They should not, he says, lead their penitents into temptation by their excessive and imprudent zeal in asking whether they are resolved to avoid sin even at the risk of suffering the greatest misfortunes, loss of goods, of health, or even of life itself; for questions of this kind would prove a snare to many penitents. His office should be rather to persuade them to love God above all things, and in consequence of this love to repent of their sins and avoid them for the future. In this way he will inflame the hearts of his penitents, without leading them into danger.[199]

The celebrated Lugo reminds us of the weakness of the human heart; the confessor is to take this weakness into account in dealing with the penitent, and not put before him singly and explicitly enormous difficulties which he should be ready to overcome rather than commit sin. In another place, treating of penitents given to ambition and sensuality, who have renounced their sins in confession though without great sorrow, but, conquered by the strength of their passion which they have only resisted feebly, have relapsed easily when occasion offered, he says: “Indeed we do not dare to represent clearly in detail the temptations or occasions of sinning which may occur, in order that the penitent may make his resolutions on each point, for there is good reason to fear that he will fail to retract his former sins even _in confuso_.”[200]

It is then sufficient _per se_ that the penitent resolve _in confuso_ to sin no more; a resolution of this kind, however, may be easily defeated by the contemplation of a peculiar difficulty. For this reason the penitent should renew frequently and earnestly his resolution never to sin again; if he do this and also pray, there is reason to hope that he will be victorious in the actual moment of trial. Men of strong will and steadfast heart may put before themselves and contemplate with their eyes open the difficulties in the way of avoiding sin and reforming their lives, and such conduct is helpful in the spiritual struggle, unless the subject be one in which the heart is vehemently carried away or where victory consists in flight. To conjure up difficulties and to review temptations which might disturb weak minds and lead them into danger[201] serves no good purpose and is not to be recommended.

From the foregoing it is abundantly evident:—

1. That the Jansenists and rigorists are wrong in maintaining that relapse into sin is a sign of a want of purpose. The resolution depends on the present frame of mind which, however strong it is, may easily waver. “The fact of a man sinning again does not prevent his former sorrow from having been real; as a man may be now seated who has been running, so a man may fall into sin who has been truly repentant; the nature of a former act is not changed by a subsequent act.”[202] And the Rituale Romanum[203] directs, as of great utility, to advise those who easily relapse into sin to confess often, once a month, or on certain feasts, and also to communicate; it presumes that such people in spite of their relapses have made good confessions; otherwise the penitent would be obliged to repeat his confessions as being invalid every time that he relapsed, which would certainly be opposed to the practice and universal belief of the faithful. If, however, a penitent relapse without any effort to overcome himself, it may be taken as a sign that he had no fixed determination, or there is ground for a suspicion, at least, of its absence; any one who is really determined to avoid sin will not easily forget his purpose; he will resist for some time at least, and will fall less easily and less often.[204]

2. Even if a penitent is conscious of his own weakness and knows that he will relapse in spite of his resolution and in spite of earnest effort, he cannot be considered as giving undoubted signs of weakness of purpose. It is only the rigorists who demand a firm conviction of not falling again.

If, however, a penitent is so afraid that he will fall again, or so convinced that he will repeat his sin as to despair of reforming, he cannot be absolved; not only does he fail in resolution—there is a fair suspicion at least that he has no fixed determination—but he distrusts God’s grace which is ever at hand, and, as experience proves, is always efficacious in helping men of good will to overcome difficulties and obstacles. Before giving such a penitent absolution he must be taught the fatal error of his ways, moved to sorrow for his despair, for such despair is sinful, and exhorted to great confidence in God’s grace. This is the doctrine of St. Alphonsus,[205] in which, as he himself confesses, he follows Busenbaum,[206] Concina, and Lacroix.[207]

If, finally, the penitent has misgivings from his previous experience of relapses, but not so strong as to deprive him of all confidence, he is not to be classed at once as indisposed; the confessor must persuade him to make a firm resolution against sin and encourage him to have confidence in God’s grace. If he succeed in arousing hope in him, and the penitent promise to have recourse to prayer in temptation, it is better to give absolution at once than to put it off. This class of penitents should be encouraged to confess frequently, for there is reason to hope that they have a fixed determination to improve; there is no presumption for the opposite view, since a strong resolution to avoid sin is quite compatible with the fear of a possible relapse.[208]

Still less would it be a sign of want of the requisite dispositions if the confessor were persuaded that the penitent could hardly be saved from a relapse; this conclusion may be drawn with moral certainty, or, at least, on strong presumption, from the ordinary occurrences of life; hence the necessary disposition on the part of the penitent can always be secured.

In practice it is not of infrequent occurrence that a penitent, otherwise of good will, alarmed by the difficulties of some undertaking, declares that he cannot avoid a certain sin, or refuses to make a promise for fear of breaking his word, or says he cannot trust himself. This happens in the case of those who are given to some evil habit, as, for instance, taking the name of God in vain, swearing, flying into a rage, etc. Such a penitent must not only be encouraged to trust to the help of divine grace, but be taught that all required of him is to have at the present moment (_hic et nunc_) the determination not to relapse, that he should not look too far ahead but make his resolution day by day. The confessor must take particular care that the penitent understands that that only is demanded of him which he freely acknowledges to be within his power. This end is obtained by suggesting methods to the penitent to be used when he is free from temptation as well as when he is attacked, and by impressing upon him that all demanded of him is to guard against committing sins knowingly and with full advertence.[209]

The resolution must, moreover, be _efficacious_, _i.e._ the penitent must be ready not only to avoid sin, but also to take the necessary means for avoiding it, especially by avoiding the proximate occasions; for whoever effectually desires some end must, of necessity, as far as lies in him, remove all impediments to it, and employ all the means which will lead to it. Hence theologians teach that the resolution must be _efficax affectu_; in the case, however, where it is not _executione efficax_, _i.e._ where the penitent fails to accomplish his purpose, it is not reasonable to conclude at once that a real and sufficient resolve was absent, though some presumption against the fixity of the purpose may be entertained. What has been said with respect to the steadfastness of the purpose of amendment may be applied to its efficaciousness, seeing that the two subjects are so intimately connected. Though it is undoubted that for valid confession the purpose of amendment must be fixed and efficacious, yet we are not to understand thereby that a man may never fail in his resolution. It is quite certain that men are so fickle that they will fall away frequently from determined and fixed resolutions, as we see, for instance, in the case of St. Peter, who, as we know, was sincerely pledged not to betray his Lord, and, yet, denied Him soon after, at the mere word of a maid servant.

The purpose of amendment, then, is fixed and efficacious when a man is determined really to carry out what he has proposed, though he may afterwards fail through fear of an obstacle or in the stress of temptation; this happens often enough even in the case of those who are aiming at Christian perfection. Hence, for valid reception of the Sacrament, the purpose of amendment is sufficiently efficacious if it keep a man from sin during the time that his resolution lasts.[210]

In order to be reasonably free from misgivings with regard to his resolution, the penitent should be morally certain that he desires to avoid sin at any cost for the rest of his life, despite all grounds he may have for believing that his resolution may become weak in course of time.

Finally, the resolution must be _universal_, _i.e._ it must extend to all mortal sins at least, not only those which have been committed, but also those which are possible. Here lies the distinction between the universality of the contrition and that of the purpose of amendment; for while the sorrow is universal which includes all the sins that have been committed, the resolution, in order to be valid, must embrace all possible mortal sins. If there remained but a single mortal sin which the penitent was unwilling to shun, his resolution would be vain and useless even with regard to his other sins, because it could not be founded on a universal motive, such as hatred of sin considered in the light of an offense against God. A resolution which is based on this motive extends to all mortal sins without reserve, because they are all an offense against God; and if but one be excepted, such a motive could not have influenced the purpose of amendment, which in consequence cannot be real and genuine.[211]

18. The Purpose of Amendment with regard to Venial Sin.

The purpose of amendment, as we have said, must extend at least to all mortal sins. With regard to venial sins it must be constant and efficacious, but not necessarily universal; for, since venial sin is consistent with the friendship and grace of God in the soul, one is not obliged to resolve on avoiding all of them: indeed no one _sine speciali privilegio gratiæ_ can avoid all venial sins, and no one is called upon to resolve to accomplish the impossible; still there is an obligation to resolve to avoid them as much as possible, or at least to diminish their number. The following points will present the matter in detail:—

1. It is sufficient with respect to any venial sin to make an act of contrition and a purpose of amendment, even though these acts do not extend to all lighter venial sins of the same species; for the greater the sin the greater is the offense against God and the punishment due to it; and a man may well shrink from displeasing God beyond a certain point, though below that point he may be careless.

2. It is sufficient to make an act of sorrow and purpose of amendment with regard to some particular species of sin, or some vice, or some sins opposed to a particular virtue, especially if the penitent keeps before his mind those particular sins which have been committed with greater malice and deliberation.[212]

3. With much more reason may it be considered sufficient to make acts of sorrow and purpose of amendment for all perfectly deliberate venial sins on account of their greater guilt; such a universal sorrow must, however, include a fixed and efficacious resolution of amendment. With respect to venial sins which are not quite deliberate, the resolution to take more pains to avoid them is a sufficient purpose of amendment. In order that such a universal resolve may be of avail, a particular species of sin should be singled out and made the special object of contrition and amendment.

4. Moreover, it is the general teaching of moralists that it is enough to make acts of sorrow and amendment with regard to the frequency of venial sin if the penitent really resolve to reduce the number; it is necessary here, however, to guard against a very lax practice. Though such doctrine is possible in theory and such a purpose of amendment may be defended as sufficient for the Sacrament, yet it is not free from risk; hence St. Alphonsus in his book _Praxis Confessarii_ distinctly states that a resolution founded only on the great number of venial sins without any sorrow for any particular venial sin is not sufficient for receiving the Sacrament, while in his Moral Theology he grants that such a resolution is permissible, and founds it on the doctrine of St. Thomas; for it is impossible, he says, to be sorry on account of the number of the venial sins without repenting at least of those that have been last incurred and which have raised the number.[213]

The above doctrine may be useful to the priest in appeasing scruples about past confessions, if the penitent is not in the habit of falling into grave sin, and fears that he may have confessed without sufficient sorrow and purpose of amendment. _Ante factum_, _i.e._ before confession or, at least, before absolution is given, this doctrine should be confined _in praxi_ to the sorrow and amendment of sins not quite deliberate and incurred through carelessness; for the guilt of such sins lies chiefly in the carelessness by which a man fails to watch himself and his evil inclinations, so far as possible to repress and overcome them.

It is impossible for a man to preserve himself entirely from all these sins, hence it is enough to be resolved to use great vigilance in reducing the number.

Moreover, it may be observed that a man who keeps his conscience so pure that he has only indeliberate venial sins to confess will easily make a sufficient act of sorrow for past sins; but if a man always falls into the same sin, it is a fairly clear sign that he has no true contrition and no firm purpose of amendment; hence it is a useful practice to make more careful acts of sorrow and amendment with regard to some particular sin, or to add some grave sin of the past life with respect to which real sorrow and a firm purpose of amendment can be aroused.