Article II. On the Purpose of Not Sinning Henceforth

I say. The purpose of not sinning henceforth, at least implicit, is absolutely necessary for the remission of sin. The reason is that otherwise contrition itself would be illusory; for he does not truly detest sin who has the mind of committing it again. But a true purpose must enjoy a threefold condition; namely it is required that it be firm, efficacious, and universal. Therefore it must be:

1°. Firm, namely the penitent must have a sincere will of not relapsing into sin, notwithstanding any inconvenience or human fear whatever; for otherwise he would not will to be totally and sincerely converted to God. Yet the confessor ought not to test the soul of the penitent by employing comparisons, or by proposing inconveniences and certain particular difficulties suited to disturb his imagination.

2°. Efficacious, that is, the penitent must not only firmly establish that he does not wish to sin further, but must also employ the means necessary for avoiding sin and fleeing proximate occasions, etc. - But it suffices that the purpose be efficacious affectively, that is, it suffices that the sinner be prepared in soul to employ the necessary means; because future amendment in fact is not of the essence of purpose.

3°. Universal, or it must extend to all mortal sins, not only those committed, but also those which could be committed. The reason is that full and true conversion to God cannot be given without aversion from every lethal sin.

Question 1. Whether purpose, in order that it be firm, must besides be found constant? Resp. Negatively, at least absolutely and generally speaking. The reason is that purpose affects the present will, which otherwise from its nature is variable. Hence from relapse after confession, infirmity of purpose cannot be gathered per se. - I said absolutely and generally speaking; for if the penitent relapses immediately and with almost no resistance, it can sometimes offer some indication, or at least suspicion, that he lacked a truly firm purpose; for one who firmly purposes does not so easily forget his purpose, but usually perseveres constant at least for some time, and employs efforts for resisting temptations or occasions of sin, and consequently ordinarily falls with greater difficulty and more rarely. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 451 and 459. Lugo, disp. 14, nn. 160 and seq.

Question 2. Whether the purpose of one who indeed has the mind of not sinning, yet fears and in some way foresees that he will relapse, can be judged firm? Resp. Affirmatively, generally speaking: for fear does not impede a sincere will, when it is thrown in from past fragility and the inconstancy of the human will. Hence that penitent has true purpose who, when the confessor asks about the will of not sinning, responds: I am fragile; I fear a fall; nevertheless I do not now will it. But in practice the disposition of the penitent must be inspected: for you will find not rarely sinners asserting that they are going to relapse, who for this reason doubt that they have a sufficiently firm purpose, and yet show nothing other than fear of relapsing and distrust of themselves. It must be inculcated upon penitents of this kind that the matter is not about those things which perhaps are going to happen, but about the actual will and about confidence to be placed in divine help. Cf. Lacroix, lib. 6, part. 2, n. 1733. - Baller. note (a) p. 344.

Question 3. Whether an explicit purpose is required for receiving the sacrament of Penance rightly? Resp. It is greatly controverted among theologians. The first opinion affirms absolutely; because although sorrow necessarily includes purpose, nevertheless an explicit purpose seems to be required by Trent saying: "with the purpose of not sinning henceforth." The other opinion denies absolutely; because if purpose is truly and properly contained in sorrow, which is altogether certain, nothing further ought to be required; but the words of the Council of Trent, say the patrons of this opinion, do not indicate the necessity of an explicit purpose, but only that sorrow, in order to be true, must contain a firm mind of not sinning henceforth, namely be joined with purpose. Added is the authority of the Roman Council under Benedict XIII, which, in the Instruction for children about to receive the sacrament of Penance, placed at the end of the Decrees, requires only for the value of the sacrament that there be had at least an implicit purpose. This opinion is defended by very many and most excellent theologians, and by some of them is called common, morally certain, or even most true. Finally the third opinion, which St. Alphonsus testifies is called common, teaches that if the penitent thinks about future life, he must formally propose amendment; but otherwise if he thinks nothing of the future. For if he thinks about the future, all agree that it can scarcely happen that the penitent grieves sincerely without at the same time eliciting an explicit and formal purpose.

With these opinions set forth, St. Alphonsus gives his judgment thus: "Those two latter opinions are indeed more probable; but because the first is not without its probability, in practice before the fact it is more safely to be followed." Besides, since, as the same holy Doctor testifies, most even of those who are alleged for the first opinion, although he himself does not acquiesce, agree that if in good faith you have confessed with true sorrow without a formal purpose, you are not bound to repeat the confession, this will already be the one practical conclusion, at once easy and safe: - before the fact let an explicit purpose be elicited, especially if someone is thinking about future life; but after the fact no one is to be troubled. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 450. Salmant. chap. 5, n. 54. - Laymann, chap. 4, n. 6. - Baller. note (a) p. 346; and note (c) p. 347. Lehmkuhl, n. 298.

Question 4. What purpose is required and suffices for the value of the sacrament, where only venial sins are accused? Resp. The same must be said concerning purpose as was said above concerning the sorrow required when only venial sins are accused; and consequently just as it is certain that purpose concerning all venial sins is not required, because these are compatible with the infusion of grace, so it is certain that purpose concerning only one of those things which are accused is required and suffices, whether it is some venial sin committed since the last confession, or whether it is some venial or mortal sin of the past life, and often already accused, even if that accusation is made only according to species, even the lowest species. Indeed not only does this suffice, but it is also expedient that from several venial sins which are accused, some one principal sin be selected, to the detesting and amending of which the soul is applied before the others. - Cf. Sporer, n. 339. - Elbel, nn. 113 and seq.