Case XLI: Necessity of Contrition in the Sacrament of Penance

Titus makes his Confession to the priest Sempronius, and concludes with the words: I should also mention that in the last Confession, on account of a hurried preparation, I quite forgot to awaken contrition, I consoled myself, however, with the assurance a former confessor gave me in a similar case, when he said that I need not mind the omission, because the fact that I go to Confession proves contrition. I shall make it a strict rule hereafter, nevertheless, to make after every Confession an act of contrition in advance for the next Confession, so that this matter will be attended to without fail, What will Father Sempronius say to this?

Answer.—The present case proposes three questions: (1) Is it true that people go to Confession only because they feel contrition for their sins? (2) Is contrition absolutely necessary for the forgiveness of sins? (3) Does an act of contrition, awakened immediately after a Confession in advance for the next Confession suffice in every case for the validity of the Sacrament? To the first question we must answer no, as reason and experience dictate. It is to be supposed that, like every other sacred matter, and like every Sacrament, so the Sacrament of Penance is misused by many. This misuse may consist in a culpable lack of the most essential requisite for the Sacrament on part of the receiver, the lack, namely, of a real, supernatural, all surpassing contrition, embracing all sins. Experience confirms this fact only too often. Many go to Confession solely because their usual time has arrived and not on account of a consciousness of sinfulness, not because they feel the need of conciliation with an offended God; they give no thought to that. Many again take as little trouble as possible about Confession, they confess such of their sins as they happen to think of in a hasty preparation, recite superficially the customary formula of contrition, without reflection. Some persons go to Confession in a mood of dejectedness caused by purely worldly reasons. There are others again who go for various reasons, among which the love of God, or contrition, has no place.

The second question whether contrition is absolutely requisite for the forgiveness of sins must be affirmed unconditionally. Leaving out of consideration the theological controversy whether God in His infinite freedom de potentia absoluta is able to remit to man a grievous sin without contrition, it is certain that He cannot do this de potentia ordinata; i. e., according to the order of the salvation as instituted by Him. Thus the Trident. sess. 14, cap. 4, teaches that sin never can, and never will, be remitted without contrition. For this would be in opposition to all that which God has vouchsafed to reveal to us, about His infinite perfections and attributes, it would be in opposition, also, to the natural sense of justice, if the one who had committed a crime against a mighty ruler would be tolerated to appear before the offended and say: “Forgive me, O King, for my offense, but upon the first opportunity I will commit it again,” and would obtain forgiveness. For this reason, and because the Trident, sess. 14, cap. 3, teaches that contrition is not only an absolutely necessary disposition for forgiveness of sins, but also the most important part of the matter of the Sacrament of Penance, this matter must be present at every reception. It must be supplied in the form of an interior act, with or without outward expression. That by an interior act there is meant no special formula is evident; there must be, however, present in the person’s disposition in some way a spiritual activity, a thought, however brief, that effectively and essentially contains the hatred of sin and the return to the love of God. Since the Tridentine enumerates, as matter of this Sacrament, the three acts of the penitent: contrition, confession and satisfaction, it is plain that contrition, like confession and satisfaction, must consist in some way or other of a positive act; and the more formal, lasting and profound it is, the better.

The answer to the third question depends upon the fact whether the penitent’s act of contrition must have relation to the Sacrament of Penance or not; and of what kind this relation must be. The far greater number of theologians demand this relation, so that contrition, actually awakened, but without all relation to the subsequent Confession, puts the validity of the absolution in doubt. This is evident from what has been said. For if, according to the Tridentine, the three acts of the penitent form the matter of the Sacrament of Penance, they must manifestly be supplied actus humani; i. e., with intention and consequently with reference to the Sacrament. Concerning the act of contrition it is not necessary that the intention, or resolve, to confess should precede it; but some relation to the Confession it must, nevertheless, possess. According to Lehmkuhl (Theol. mor., ed. V., II., n. 280) this relation is supplied if (1) in the tribunal of penance a person, after accusation, awakens the act of contrition, or is led to do so by the confessor. The former is not to be advised, because it may happen that absolution by the confessor is given before real contrition has penetrated the heart; (2) if a person with intention to confess examines his conscience and thereupon, in all earnestness, awakens the act of contrition as preparatory to his entering the Confessional. This manifestly is the best manner to go to Confession; (3) if a person, through some cause, is moved to contrition and to the resolution to confess, even though the actual Confession be made only the next, or the second following day; if only, in the latter case, the act of contrition virtualiter, i. e., by greater endeavor to avoid sin, or by oft-repeated prayer, continues. Should, however, in the meantime another grievous sin be committed, then the relation ceases, a new act of contrition must be awakened, over former sins as well as over the last one. Maria v. Kundt, O.F.M.