§ I. On The Necessity Of Contrition

1347. Points To Be Established. - I. Contrition, either perfect with the desire of the Sacrament, or imperfect with the Sacrament itself, is altogether necessary to the sinner by necessity of means for obtaining justification and salvation. This is clear from Scripture² and from Councils, especially Trent:³ "At every time this movement of contrition was necessary for obtaining pardon of sins." The reason from St. Thomas⁴ is this: "The offense of mortal sin proceeds from this, that the will of man is turned away from God through conversion to some mutable good; whence for the remission of the divine offense it is required that the will of man be so changed that it be converted to God with detestation of the aforesaid conversion and with purpose of amending."

II. Mortal sin being supposed, contrition is necessary by necessity of precept, at least sometime in life, and indeed of a natural, divine positive, and ecclesiastical precept. - Of natural precept; for the law of nature dictates that the means without which he cannot attain the end, which he is bound absolutely to procure, are to be assumed by man; but contrition, as is clear from what has been said at I, is for sinful man a means without which he cannot attain the end which he is bound absolutely to procure, namely his reconciliation with God and eternal salvation; therefore, etc. - Of divine positive precept, as is gathered from the words of Scripture cited at I. - Of ecclesiastical precept; for the Church, in commanding the faithful to confess their sins validly at least once in the year, by that very fact commands them to elicit true contrition concerning the sins to be confessed, since sacramental Confession without contrition cannot at all be validly instituted. - But it is understood that that contrition falls under the precept which is required for justification, namely perfect contrition outside the Sacrament, or attrition with the Sacrament.¹

III. The precept of contrition obliges sometimes per se, sometimes per accidens.

1° Apart from the precept of annual Confession, it obliges per se, i.e. from the motive of the virtue of penance - so that he who then does not elicit contrition commits a special sin of impenitence - when a grave necessity of reconciling oneself with God urges, namely in danger, even probable, of death or perpetual insanity, whether true or supposed, e.g. in a lethal disease, in war, in dangerous navigation, in difficult childbirth, in an arduous surgical operation, etc.; and this on account of the precept of attaining the last end. - I said: apart from the precept of annual Confession, in which case some say that it obliges per se, others per accidens. St. Alphonsus is silent concerning this controversy, and it seems to us a dispute about the name.

2° It obliges per accidens, when another precept urges which cannot be fulfilled without contrition, especially in the following cases, namely - when the precept of an act of charity urges, with memory of sin occurring, - when someone guilty of grave sin is about to receive or administer a Sacrament, - whenever the Sacrament of Penance is received, even for the sake of devotion, - when someone has fallen into mortal sin, in which case he would not be excused from a new mortal sin who deferred penance for a notable time. He would sin, namely, against the precept of charity toward God, which binds everyone at least several times in the year [see n. 277. q. 1°. R. 1°. c).], and against charity toward himself, since he would expose himself to the danger of new faults. But what time is to be called notable cannot be determined by one and the same rule for all; since the necessity of contrition varies according to the variety of greater or lesser infirmity of the sinner, of graver or lighter temptation which he suffers, of a continuing or passing occasion in which he is placed, etc. Nevertheless, speaking generally, St. Alphonsus, on account of the precept of charity toward God, thinks that time should not be extended beyond a month. Yet sinners, especially the untaught, for the most part, indeed almost always, will be able to be excused from this sin of delayed penance on account of inadvertence.²

1348. Questions. - Query 1° Is he who in danger or at the article of death receives the Sacrament of Penance with attrition bound besides to elicit an act of perfect contrition?

Resp. Some affirm it, because by the law of charity in danger of this kind each one is bound to safer means; others deny it, because means simply safe suffice. The affirmative opinion is altogether to be counseled, all the more because at the extremity of life we are bound to an act of charity, to which satisfaction cannot be made unless from the motive of the same virtue we detest sins, if they occur to memory.² Wherefore dying sinners, especially those whose penance was sufficiently weak and tepid, are seriously to be excited to contrition. Van Egeren.

Query 2° For obtaining grace in the Sacrament, besides sorrow, are explicit acts of Faith and Hope required?

Resp. Negatively. See n. 250. q. 2°, n. 270. II.

Query 3° Does he sin who confesses some venial sin without sorrow?

Resp. Negatively, more probably, provided sorrow concerning other sins, or at least one sin, is not lacking (which sorrow concerning one is necessarily included in explicit sorrow concerning a multitude), and the penitent does not knowingly subject the other sins as matter of absolution. The reason is, 1° because by reason of the validity of the Sacrament it suffices that some certain matter be offered, namely that sorrow concerning some venial sin be present, since venial sins are not necessary matter of the Sacrament of Penance, and besides, since they do not deprive one of the grace and friendship of God, some can be remitted without others; 2° because no injury is thereby done to the Sacrament if, from a good end and with all levity excluded, they are declared. Indeed usually those venial sins also concerning which sorrow, at least certain sorrow, is not had are usefully opened, namely for the greater manifestation of conscience and direction, for conceiving some shame, etc.¹

Query 4° Must contrition precede Confession?

Resp. 1° It must certainly precede absolution, or at least coexist with it, as is clear.² "But speaking practically, it is required that sorrow precede at least absolution, because no penitent sensing himself indisposed can ask for or receive absolution.

Resp. 2° The more probable and more common opinion is that for the validity of the Sacrament it is not required that sorrow precede accusation; the reason is that sorrow, although it must be sensible, does not necessarily have to become such through Confession, since it can become such through other signs; and the Ritual strongly favors this opinion, admonishing: "When Confession has been heard," the confessor is "to lead" the penitent "to sorrow," etc. The opposite opinion differs from the one set forth only in appearance; for its patrons require only that Confession not be a mere narration of sins, but have the character of sacramental accusation: but for this it suffices that Confession be made with the mind of obtaining absolution, and then that sorrow be manifested through petition for or expectation of absolution.³

Query 5° For how much space of time does an act of sorrow morally persevere for validly receiving the Sacrament?

Resp. It can certainly persevere for one day, or even another, if the penitent elicits such an act of contrition by which he is efficaciously moved toward Confession, so that the Confession afterward instituted is truly the effect of such contrition. "But otherwise, if someone confesses from mere devotion, or for fulfilling a vow or penance."² Moreover, supposing that the act of contrition was elicited with relation to the Sacrament, and before reception of this was not retracted, for example through a new mortal sin, the distance between the act of contrition and the remaining parts of the Sacrament certainly does not seem too long: 1° if the penitent, going to church with the intention of confessing, first elicits an act of contrition, and then, morally speaking, continues in examining conscience or in prayer, remains at the confessional, and confesses in his own place; even if in the Confession itself or in the reception of absolution, on account of distraction or some other cause, he no longer thinks about contrition;¹ 2° if the penitent in the morning elicits an act of contrition from the intention of confessing that day, e.g. in the evening, or in the evening with the intention of confessing the next day in the morning, and then at the time proposed confesses and is absolved, not actually thinking about contrition.²

Query 6° Is a new act of sorrow required for receiving a new absolution, when the penitent immediately after absolution confesses a mortal sin omitted from forgetfulness?

Resp. It is controverted. The probable, indeed more probable, opinion affirms. The reason is that, although sorrow morally perseveres in itself, nevertheless it does not persevere in order to the second absolution; for probably for the validity of the Sacrament it is required that sorrow be elicited in order to absolution. On which account St. Alphonsus³ judges that at least as safer this opinion is to be held.

Query 7° Can there be a valid and at the same time unformed Sacrament of Penance, on account of defect of sufficient disposition, in the case, for example, in which someone guilty of twofold sin, say theft and perjury, from invincible forgetfulness of the perjury, would confess only the theft, grieving not from a universal motive but from the special motive of baseness which is in theft?

Resp. It is controverted. Some deny with Billuart⁴ and Elbel.⁵ Their reason is that in the Sacrament of Penance contrition is the matter of the Sacrament; therefore, if it is insufficient, the Sacrament will be invalid. But if it is sufficient, the Sacrament is valid and at the same time formed, and therefore it immediately remits sins. - Yet others affirm, and indeed grave Theologians with Lugo,⁶ Lacroix;⁷ and St. Alphonsus⁸ calls this more probable. - But their reason is that in the alleged case, on the one hand nothing is lacking of those things which are required for the validity of the Sacrament - not formally integral Confession, since everything that occurred to memory was declared; - not sorrow, since it is present concerning the sin confessed; - not absolution, as is supposed. - But, on the other hand, the Sacrament must actually lack its effect, since one mortal sin cannot be remitted without the other, but defect of sorrow stands in the way of the remission of the perjury.