§ I. On the Necessity of Contrition

I say. Contrition, either perfect with the desire of the sacrament or imperfect with the sacrament itself, is necessary for the sinner, both by necessity of means for obtaining justification and also by necessity of precept at least sometimes in life. The reason for the first is taken from the words of Christ, Luke xiii, 3: "Unless you shall have penance, you shall all likewise perish," and also from the Council of Trent, sess. 6, chap. 6, where hatred and detestation for sin are counted among the principal dispositions for justification. But the reason for the second is both because there is frequent speech in the Scriptures concerning such a precept, especially Matt. iii, 2, where it is expressly said: "Do penance"; and because there exists a natural precept of doing whatever is necessary by necessity of means for salvation. - Cf. St. Thom. 3, q. 86, art. 2. St. Alphonsus, n. 334.

Question 1. How and when does the precept of contrition oblige? Resp. The precept of contrition, always supposing that someone is in the state of mortal sin, obliges gravely, although now per se, now per accidens. It obliges per se both in danger, even probable, of death, on account of the necessity of attaining the ultimate end, and sometimes in life, as has already been said and will be more determined below. But it obliges per accidens when another precept presses which cannot be fulfilled without contrition, for example, the precept of annual confession; or when someone is about to receive or administer a sacrament, or also as often as he receives the sacrament of Penance for the sake of devotion alone. Yet it is certain that the precept of contrition does not oblige immediately after a mortal sin has been committed, because it is affirmative; for it is of the nature of an affirmative precept that it not oblige immediately, because otherwise it would oblige at each moment. - Cf. St. Thom. 4, dist. 17, q. 3, art. 1, q. 4. - St. Alphonsus, n. 437. - Baller. note (c) p. 312.

Question 2. What is the force of that particle "sometimes," or when does delay of contrition induce grave sin? Resp. The theologians do not agree; for some extend it to a year, others to six months; others with St. Alphonsus to one month. But the holy Doctor himself adds: "Sinners, especially the rude, can for the most part, indeed almost always, be excused from this sin of delayed penance, on account of inadvertence." But it seems, not improbably, that not only the rude, but all who satisfy the precept of annual confession, can be excused, because it is not certainly established concerning the obligation of making an act of contrition more often than once in a year. But those who have not confessed for many years, since they already implicitly accuse this sin of delayed penance, are not necessarily to be questioned on this matter. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 437. - Lugo, disp. 15, n. 55. - Salmant. tract. 6, chap. 1, nn. 51 and 55. - Pallav. punct. 3, n. 10. Baller. note (b) p. 313; and note (a) p. 314.

Question 3. Whether he who in the article of death receives the sacrament of Penance with attrition known as such is bound besides to elicit an act of perfect contrition? Resp. Negatively, probably; for he would chiefly be bound on this account, because there is present an absolute necessity of attaining the ultimate end: but this reason cannot be urged, because it is morally certain that justification is obtained through attrition alone with the sacrament; from another source, no one is bound to use the safer means when he has already employed a means simply safe. Therefore ... Yet some affirm that there is present an obligation of eliciting an act of contrition, but per accidens, namely if the memory of a past sin occurred to the dying person; for, they say, he would not then satisfy the obligation of eliciting an act of perfect charity if, when the memory of sin occurred, he did not detest this sin from that motive. But because concerning the obligation of eliciting an act of perfect charity in the article of death, when someone has already obtained justification, there is probable dispute on both sides, neither does this argument settle the matter. Whatever may be the case, it is plainly expedient that the dying be stirred, as far as can be done, to eliciting and repeating acts of perfect charity and contrition. - Cf. Baller. note (b) p. 314.

Question 4. Whether it is necessary for the value of the sacrament that contrition precede the accusation itself of sins? Resp. Negatively, and the reason is that according to the Roman Ritual the priest is indeed bound to bring the penitent to sorrow by efficacious words, but only after the confession has been heard. But although the practice of some faithful is that, when they have completed the accusation, they use this or a similar formula: I grieve greatly for these sins and I accuse myself; nevertheless only scrupulous penitents, instructed by scrupulous confessors, think a formula of this kind obligatory. - I said instructed by scrupulous confessors; for these alone, relying on an empty foundation, demand these formulas for the value of the sacrament. This empty foundation is twofold; for they object 1°. that contrition must be sensible, and that the manifestation of this sensibility is obtained through accusation; but it is answered that the sensibility of contrition can be manifested, and in fact is manifested, in many other ways, especially through the petition and expectation of absolution. They object 2°. that according to theologians confession must be sorrowful; but it is answered that theologians by that word sorrowful require only that confession not be a mere narration of sins, but rather an accusation of oneself in order to receive absolution. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 445. Lugo, disp. 14, nn. 13 and 18. - Salmant. tract. 6, chap. 5, n. 22. - Baller. note (a) p. 316.

Question 5. Through what space of time does an act of contrition endure, so that afterward the sacrament may be validly received? Resp. This cannot be determined certainly: yet according to the common opinion it is said that it can persevere for one day, and even longer, provided it has not been retracted by another mortal sin. But some theologians require besides that it was elicited with the intention of making confession. Whatever may be the case, practically speaking those penitents are not to be troubled who, when in the morning, while they were hearing Mass, or later toward midday, they elicited an act of contrition with the intention of confessing that day, but in the evening actually approached confession without having renewed contrition. Indeed they are not to be troubled even if they had had no respect to making confession on that day, because not even in that hypothesis would the nullity of the confession be established. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 446 and 447. - Lugo, disp. 14, nn. 37 and 40. - Baller. note (a) p. 318; and note (a) p. 319.

Question 6. Whether a new act of sorrow is required for receiving a new absolution when the penitent immediately after absolution confesses a mortal sin omitted from forgetfulness? Resp. The opinion which, according to St. Alphonsus, is more common, but according to very many grave theologians is common, undoubted, and morally certain, denies that this is required. For since the prior contrition has not been destroyed by the absolution received, it certainly perseveres; and because it was universal, it extended also to that sin omitted from forgetfulness and now is again manifested in the very act of the new accusation. But St. Alphonsus holds the affirmative opinion as more probable, because sorrow must be not only elicited, but also elicited in order to absolution. Therefore in practice before the fact, if someone does not hold the negative opinion as morally certain, it is necessary that he seek from the penitent a new act of contrition; and this indeed he will most easily accomplish while he raises his hand to impart the new absolution. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 448. - Baller. note (a) p. 320.