Section — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
§ 2. On Attrition
342. 1. Attrition cannot justify with the desire for the sacrament alone, but requires the sacrament actually received.
Hence arose the adage: A man from being attrite is made contrite through the sacrament of penance. This, however, is not to be understood as though attrition became contrition107 in the sacrament of penance; rather, an attrite man receiving sanctifying grace through sacramental absolution at the same time receives the habit of charity which causes contrition.108
107 Suppl., q. 1, a. 3.
108 Cf. R. Schultes, Reue u. Bußsakr., nn. 19, 36 ff., 91.
343. 2. True attrition suffices for obtaining justification in the sacrament of penance.
This proposition is now altogether certain and admitted by all, so that the contrary opinion, which many theologians before the Council of Trent held, is rash. St. Thomas109 already taught: "When someone approaches confession attrite, not fully contrite, if he places no obstacle, in the confession and absolution themselves grace and the remission of sins are given to him." The same is elicited not obscurely from the Council of Trent,110 which says: "Although [attrition] without the sacrament of penance cannot of itself lead the sinner to justification, nevertheless it disposes him to obtain the grace of God in the sacrament of penance." The Council indeed employs the word "disposes," but this word is to be understood of a sufficient proximate disposition and signifies the same as suffices. This is evident from the context and from the comparison of attrition with contrition. For the Council wished to teach that contrition justifies even without the sacrament, but attrition only when sacramental absolution supervenes. Moreover, the same thing is manifestly evident from the universal practice of the Church, which admonishes that absolution be given to dying persons deprived of their senses whose disposition can rightly be presumed. Now this practice would not be reasonable if attrition did not suffice for valid absolution. For then, if true contrition were lacking, sacramental absolution would be invalid; but if contrition existed, absolution would be almost superfluous, since contrition justifies even without sacramental absolution actually received.
It is remarkable how many and how great ancient theologians thought true contrition to be necessary for every remission of sins, even in the sacrament of penance.111 There are cited for this opinion: Hugh of St. Victor,112 Richard of St. Victor,113 Robert Pullen,114 the Master of the Sentences,115 Innocent III,116 William of Auxerre,117 Blessed Albert the Great,118 Alexander of Hales,119 St. Raymond of Peñafort,120 St. Bonaventure,121 and several others, for example, Vincent of Beauvais, St. Bernardine of Siena, and Gabriel Biel.122 Nevertheless, Harnack errs in saying that before the thirteenth century contrition was always held to be necessary, since ancient authors often take the word contrition in a different sense from modern theologians; for under contrition they also include attrition.
There are some celebrated controversies concerning attrition which it is useful to touch upon briefly here:
109 In IV Sent., dist. 22, q. 2, a. 1, sol. 3; cf. Suppl., q. 10, a. 1; q. 18, a. 1.
110 Session 14, c. 4, On Penance (Denz., n. 898).
111 Cf. M. Buchberger, Die Wirkungen des Bußsakr. nach der Lehre des hl. Thomas (Friburgi 1901), § 4.
112 De sacr. l. 2, P. 14, c. 8.
113 De potestate solvendi ac ligandi, cc. 7 and 19.
114 De sacr. P. 3, c. 13.
115 In IV Sent., dist. 17 and 18.
116 In Ps. 2 poenitentialem.
117 Summa IV, De sacr. poenit.
118 In IV Sent., dist. 17 and 18.
119 Summa, l. 4, q. 8, membr. 1.
120 Summa, De poenit. l. 3, § 11.
121 In IV Sent., dist. 18, P. 1, a. 2, q. 1.
122 Cf. Drouven, De re sacr. l. 6, c. 2, a. 2.
344. 1. Is attrition conceived from the fear of Gehenna alone good?
Luther contends that attrition conceived from fear is forced and evil, and that it renders a man worse and a true hypocrite. The Jansenists, Quesnel, and the Synod of Pistoia taught similar things.123 Before the proposed question is answered, it is necessary to attend to the doctrine of St. Thomas124 concerning the four species of fear, namely: worldly, servile, initial, and filial.125 Servile fear is subdivided: for it is either servilely servile, when, namely, someone indeed avoids sins because of the punishments to be inflicted, but is so disposed that he would continue sinning if punishment were not present; or, in other words, he still loves sin and is like a dog that would wish to devour the meat but is deterred from it by the master's threatening staff. Or fear is simply servile, which indeed detests sin because of the punishments that threaten, but at the same time truly puts away affection for sin. Servilely servile fear is certainly evil because it retains affection for sin; worldly fear is likewise evil, as is evident of itself. Filial fear is certainly good, and initial fear likewise. But is simply servile fear good? The affirmative answer is of faith and was indeed defined in the Council of Trent:126 "If anyone says that the fear of Gehenna, through which, grieving over sins, we flee to the mercy of God or abstain from sinning, is a sin or makes sinners worse, let him be anathema." Alexander VII condemned proposition 15: "Attrition, which is conceived from fear of the punishments of Gehenna without the love of benevolence toward God for His own sake, is not a good and supernatural motion."127 Leo X condemned proposition 6 of Luther: "Contrition, which is prepared by the discussion, comparison, and detestation of sins, by which someone recollects his years in the bitterness of his soul, weighing the gravity, multitude, and foulness of his sins, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes a hypocrite, indeed, rather, a sinner."128
Theological reason manifestly shows the goodness of such attrition. For three elements concur in attrition, and all of them are good:
a) The inducing motive, namely, fear and flight from the punishments of Gehenna.
b) The means for obtaining this end, namely, detestation of sin.
c) The ordering of this means toward obtaining the end.
But if these three elements are good, the whole is also good, since there is question of a moral act in which nothing evil is found. Moreover, simply servile fear is a true detestation of sin, the affection for which is altogether removed from the soul, and therefore it includes a good purpose of serving God.129
123 Hence attrition has been called the sorrow of one hanging upon the gallows (Galgenreue).
124 S. theol. 2, 2, q. 19, a. 2 ad 4.
125 Cf. above, I, n. 542.
126 Session 6, can. 8, On Justification (Denz., n. 818).
127 Denz., n. 1146.
128 Denz., n. 746; cf. proposition 25 of the Synod of Pistoia (Denz., n. 1525).
129 Cf. Billuart, De poenit., diss. 4, a. 5.
345. 2. Does attrition from the fear of Gehenna alone, without initial love, suffice for the sacrament of penance?
It is remarkable how very bitter disputes concerning this question have blazed forth since the sixteenth century. According to the testimony of Benedict XIV,130 Francis de Vitoria and Dominic Soto, both of the Order of Preachers, were the first of all to teach that, for the remission of sins in the sacrament of penance, merely servile attrition suffices, provided that in good faith the penitent judges it to be contrition. Melchior Cano, proceeding further, no longer requires contrition thought in good faith to be present, but true attrition alone. Nevertheless, he still speaks hesitantly: "Contrition is set down as a part of the sacrament because it is certain and indubitable matter. But that attrition suffices, although it is true, is not so certain and indubitable; and therefore the Council of Florence and the common opinion, holding what is certain and leaving aside what is uncertain, set down contrition as a part of this sacrament."131 Several other authors followed Melchior Cano, at first indeed timidly, such as Suarez, Vasquez, Comitolus, and so forth; but afterward, having become bolder, they advanced so far that they called the opposite opinion, which requires at least initial love, altogether improbable, dangerous, and contrary to the mind of the Council of Trent. Authors requiring some initial love were called Contritionists;132 but the adversaries denying the necessity of this initial love are called Attritionists. The dispute reached such a point that Alexander VII, on May 5, 1667, had to impose silence upon the disputants. These are the words: "Our Most Holy Lord Pope Alexander VII, having learned, not without grave sorrow of mind, that certain Scholastics dispute among themselves too sharply, and not without scandal of the faithful, whether that attrition which is conceived from fear of Gehenna, excluding the will to sin together with the hope of pardon, requires in addition some act of love of God for obtaining grace in the sacrament of penance, some affirming it, others denying it, and mutually branding the adverse opinion with a censure: His Holiness, earnestly desiring to preserve the bond of peace among the faithful and to extinguish every tinder of division, ... by this present decree, in virtue of holy obedience and under pain of excommunication latae sententiae reserved to this Holy See, and other penalties to be determined at the judgment of that Holy See, commands each and every one of the faithful, of whatever rank and dignity ... they may be, that if henceforth they write on the matter of the aforesaid attrition, or publish books or writings, or teach, or preach, or in any other manner instruct penitents or students or others, they shall not dare to brand either opinion with the mark of any theological censure or other injury or insult, whether the opinion denying the necessity of some love of God in the aforesaid attrition conceived from fear of Gehenna, which today seems more common among Scholastics, or the opinion affirming the necessity of the said love, until something in this matter shall have been defined by this Holy See."133
The dispute seems to be about words rather than things, because different men understand initial love differently. Initial love certainly is not the love of charity, because then there would no longer be attrition but contrition, since even the least charity suffices for justification.134 Therefore initial love is either the love of benevolence alone or the love of concupiscence. Although in human matters the love of benevolence differs greatly from the love of concupiscence, nevertheless a true and upright love of concupiscence, which regards God as our ultimate beatitude, seems in some manner to be a love of benevolence. For a man who is truly attrite detests sin and must put away his affection for it; moreover, he must purpose the voluntary observance of God's commandments. But among these commandments there is found, as the principal one, that of loving God above all things. Moreover, he wishes to attain eternal life, which is most perfect friendship with God. From all these things it manifestly follows that true attrition is logically and psychologically altogether impossible without some initial love of God. Attrition which excludes every love of God is now nothing other than servilely servile fear, which assuredly does not suffice for obtaining justification in the sacrament of penance.
Since these things are so, today almost all theologians admit the necessity of some initial love in attrition. Therefore that opinion which in the time of Alexander VII seems not to have been so common is now far more common.135 St. Thomas136 already taught briefly and clearly: "Just as someone is introduced to loving God by the fact that, fearing to be punished by Him, he ceases from sin, as Augustine says; so also hope introduces charity, inasmuch as someone, hoping to be rewarded by God, is enkindled to love God and to keep His precepts." In this sense the text of the Council of Trent137 also seems to be understood, which requires that sinners "begin to love God as the fountain of all justice." In almost the same manner St. Francis de Sales138 and St. Alphonsus139 explain the initial love required in attrition.
130 De syn. dioec. l. 7, c. 13, n. 6.
131 Relect. de poenit. P. 6.
132 All those ancient Scholastics who attributed the remission of sins to perfect contrition alone and not to priestly absolution are also sometimes called Contritionists.
133 Denz., n. 1146.
134 Cf. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 5, a. 3.
135 Cf. Schanz, Die Lehre v. d. Sakr. I, § 40; Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. II, n. 391.
136 S. theol. 2, 2, q. 17, a. 8.
137 Session 6, c. 6, On Justification (Denz., n. 798).
138 De amore Dei l. 2, c. 17.
139 Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 442 at the end.