§ III. On the Efficacy of Contrition

I say 1°. Perfect contrition justifies a man even outside the sacrament of Penance, but not without the desire of this sacrament. The reason for the first is that perfect contrition includes perfect charity, which imports conjunction with God. The reason for the second is that the sacrament of Penance is the one means instituted by Christ for the remission of sins. - Cf. De Augustinis, part. 1, Thes. 5, p. 45.

I say 2°. Attrition outside the sacrament of Penance cannot justify a sinner; but if it is joined with the sacrament as a prerequisite disposition, it suffices for obtaining pardon of sins. The reason for the first is that the attrite man, although he withdraws from creatures and begins the first steps of conversion to God, nevertheless is not yet perfectly converted to Him and joined by love. But the reason for the second is that then nothing is lacking to prevent the sacrament from producing its effect. Therefore attrition in the sacrament does not justify by its own power, but only together with the other parts, especially with the absolution of the priest. But in this case the penitent is said to become contrite from attrite, not properly and formally, but as to equivalence and effect. Cf. De Augustinis, part. 1, Thes. 9, p. 90; and part. 2, p. 249, Scholion 11.

Question 1. Whether the desire of confession must be explicit in contrition? Resp. Negatively, with the common opinion. The reason is that for remission it suffices that someone be truly joined with God with his whole heart through perfect contrition; for God, as is clear 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. Therefore for the remission of sin through contrition it is not essential that the desire of confession be explicit. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 437. - Salmant. chap. 2, n. 23.

Question 2. Whether contrition remits not only the fault, but also the punishment due to fault? Resp. It certainly remits eternal punishment, because a man justified through contrition cannot remain guilty of eternal damnation. Besides, according to the greater or lesser intensity of the same contrition, it also remits part of the temporal punishment due to mortal or venial sins that have been destroyed. Consequently very intense perfect contrition can also abolish all punishment; but it does not necessarily have this efficacy from its nature. This is drawn from the Council of Trent, sess. 6, chap. 14; and sess. 14, on Penance, chap. 8 and can. 12.

Question 3. Whether attrition remits venial sins outside the sacrament? Resp. It is controverted, but more probably it seems that one must answer affirmatively. The reason is, 1°. because from 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 the sense of the faithful; 3°. because the power of remitting venial sins is commonly attributed to sacramentals; but it would be attributed falsely if contrition were required for destroying them. Yet not a few deny this, because from Trent, sess. 14, chap. 5, venial sins are usefully accused in confession; but they would not be usefully accused if they could be remitted by attrition. Therefore. But it is rightly replied that venial sins are usefully exposed in confession also for other causes, namely for the remission of punishment, for the merit of confusion, for the advantage of direction, etc. - Cf. De Augustinis, part. 1, art. 9, p. 105.