Section — Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)
§ III. On the Efficacy of Contrition
- Principles. - I. Perfect contrition of itself justifies a man, even outside the Sacrament of Penance 1. 1. This is evident from reason; for contrition necessarily includes perfect charity; moreover, to love God perfectly is to be united with God; but union with God necessarily effects separation from sin, since one cannot embrace one extreme without withdrawing totally from the opposite extreme. Therefore.... 2. It is evident from Sacred Scripture. Prov. 8:18: I love those who love me. - John 14:21: He who loves me shall be loved by my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. - 1 Pet. 4:8: Charity covers a multitude of sins.
1 The contrary doctrine was condemned both in Propositions 31, 32, and 70 of Michael Baius, who contended that perfect charity could exist without the remission of sins and with liability to eternal damnation; and more expressly in Proposition 71, which is as follows: Through contrition, even when joined with perfect charity and with the entire desire of receiving the Sacrament, a crime is not remitted outside a case of necessity or martyrdom without the actual reception of the Sacraments. Bellarmine refuted this in De Poenitentia, bk. 2, ch. 13.
An opinion akin to this condemned doctrine is that of Francis Sylvius, who (In Supplementum S. Thomae, q. 5, art. 1) taught that contrition, although joined with perfect love of God above all things, does not always, nor frequently or ordinarily, have the remission of sins joined to it before the Sacrament is received. See Cardinal De Lugo, who (De Poenitentia, disp. 5, no. 98 ff.) refutes both this and other discordant opinions of this writer.
II. Perfect contrition does not remit mortal sins, or justify a man, except with the desire of confession; for sins cannot be remitted except through the means instituted by Christ; but the Sacrament of Penance in reality, or at least in desire, is the one means instituted by Christ for remitting sins committed after Baptism. Therefore, etc. 2. This is evident, moreover, from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, ch. 4.
2 In what sense these things are to be understood you have from Lugo (De Sacramento Eucharistiae, disp. 3, no. 3), where he discusses the desire of Baptism and of Penance thus: Contrition is called Baptism in desire, not indeed because it has its efficacy in relation to justification from actual Baptism itself, but because it includes in itself an implicit desire of receiving Baptism, if it can be done, just as also of fulfilling all the other precepts. In this sense also contrition is said to justify in relation to the keys, or in relation to the Sacrament of Penance, not because it receives the power of justifying from the Sacrament, but because, when it justifies outside the Sacrament, it has in itself the implicit desire of subjecting mortal sins to the keys, to which a man remains bound even after he has been justified through contrition.
IV. Attrition, however, cannot justify a sinner outside the Sacrament. For justification consists in the perfect union of man with God; but one who is attrite, although he withdraws from creatures and begins the first steps of conversion toward God, is nevertheless not yet perfectly converted to Him and united through love. Nor does attrition justify in the Sacrament by its own power, but it is only a prerequired condition; the Sacrament itself, however, justifies through the infusion of grace: wherefore in the Sacrament the penitent is actually attrite and becomes habitually contrite 3.
3 Since perfect contrition justifies by its own power and at the same time is a disposition toward the Sacrament, he who approaches the Sacrament perfectly contrite is therefore enriched with a twofold gift of sanctifying grace: first, namely, by the power of contrition, and then again by the power of the Sacrament. But when the Author, following the customary phrase of the schools, says that in the Sacrament the attrite becomes contrite, understand habitually contrite, namely through the infusion of sanctifying grace, which is conferred by the power of absolution and renders the man habitually converted to God.
- Questions. - QUESTION 1. Must the desire of confession be explicit in contrition?
Reply. Negative, with the common opinion, which Billuart, diss. 1, art. 4, sec. 2; the Salmanticenses, ch. 2, no. 23, hold. The reason is that, for remission, it suffices that someone be truly united with God with his whole heart through perfect contrition; for God, as is plain from what has been said, cannot reject a sinner approaching Him with his whole heart and from the most perfect motive; but it can sometimes happen that a sinner elicits an act of perfect contrition without thinking of confession, whether from inadvertence or natural forgetfulness, or from invincible ignorance 4. Therefore, for the remission of sin through contrition, it is not essential that the desire of confession be explicit.
4 That is, the desire or will of confession is necessary, no differently than the will to fulfill all the precepts of God is required for perfect contrition. But this desire or implicit will can be present even if someone does not actually think of certain precepts, or even invincibly is ignorant of them.
- QUESTION 2. Does contrition remit not only guilt, but also the punishment due to guilt?
Reply 1. It certainly remits eternal punishment, because a man justified through contrition cannot remain liable to eternal damnation.
Reply 2. According to its greater or lesser intensity, it also remits a part of the temporal punishment due to mortal or venial sins which have been blotted out. Hence very intense perfect contrition can abolish even every punishment; but by its nature it does not necessarily have this efficacy. This is gathered from Trent, sess. 6, ch. 14 and canon 30. - Likewise from sess. 14, De Poenitentia, ch. 8 and canon 12.
- QUESTION 3. Does attrition remit venial sins outside the Sacrament?
Reply. It is controverted. The affirmative seems more probable. The reason is: 1. because, according to the Council of Trent, venial sins can be remitted in various ways; therefore they are not remitted by perfect contrition alone; 2. because, in the opposite opinion, venial sins would not be remitted more easily than mortal sins; but this is opposed to common sense; 3. because the power of remitting venial sins is commonly attributed to the sacramentals; but it would be attributed to them falsely if contrition were required for blotting out those sins. - Thus Suarez, disp. 11, sect. 3; Lugo, disp. 9, no. 28; and many others.
Nevertheless, not a few deny it, because according to Trent, sess. 14, ch. 5, venial sins are usefully accused in confession; but they would not be usefully accused if they could be remitted by attrition: therefore, etc. But it is rightly replied that venial sins are usefully exposed in confession for other reasons also, namely, for remission of punishment, for the merit of humiliation, for the benefit of direction, etc.
QUESTION 4. Does contrition or attrition remit venial sins without the desire of the Sacrament?
Reply. Affirmative. The reason is that by divine institution the Sacrament is necessary only for mortal sins; therefore venial sins can be blotted out without the Sacrament of Penance; therefore no desire of this Sacrament is necessarily required for their remission. - Thus all.