Valid but unfruitful absolution

260. Whether the sacrament of penance can be formless. If someone approaches the sacrament of penance in good faith thinking that he has sufficient attrition, which in reality he does not have, he cannot perceive the effect of the sacrament, because sorrow is absolutely necessary for obtaining remission of sins. Indeed the sacrament not only lacks its effect, but is also invalid: for the act of contrition, at least as disposition, is altogether required not only for receiving the sacrament fruitfully, but also for receiving it validly.¹ Therefore in this case the sacrament of penance cannot be formless. Among the cases about which question can be raised, the principal one is this: if the sorrow of the penitent in good faith is not universal, as if someone guilty of two sins, wholly forgetful of one, grieves concerning the other from a particular motive. Whether in this case the sacrament is valid but formless, or invalid, is a question disputed among scholastics.

The solution of the question depends upon this: whether the sacrament of penance is valid when sorrow concerning sins is not universal but only particular. Therefore the patrons of the opinion denying that there can be a valid but formless sacrament appeal to the positive will of Christ so instituting this sacrament that universal sorrow concerning all mortal sins absolutely should be required for its validity, not only for perceiving its effect. They gather this will of Christ from the Council of Trent, which makes no distinction between the sorrow which is required for a valid sacrament and the sorrow which is required for a fruitful sacrament. But those who affirm that the sacrament can be formless think that in this case the sacrament is valid, since all things are present which are required for the validity of the sacrament: sorrowful confession with absolution; but, they say, that sorrow must necessarily be universal cannot be demonstrated. Nevertheless in this case, for valid absolution the penitent must elicit a universal purpose explicitly: for in sorrow which proceeds from a particular motive there is not contained a universal purpose. Nor should it be said that in the universal purpose of avoiding future sins there is necessarily included detestation of past sins; and therefore sorrow is always universal provided the purpose is universal: for in a universal purpose the particular sorrow is not contained except implicitly; but there can be a universal purpose and particular sorrow.²

Note. This controversy has no practical importance. First, indeed, penitents very rarely elicit contrition from a merely particular motive; then still more rarely do they add a universal purpose if they have ever elicited contrition from a particular motive. Therefore, whatever is theoretically disputed, in practice the sacrament of penance will scarcely ever be formless: for either universal contrition is elicited, and then the sacrament is valid and formed; or particular contrition is elicited, and then the sacrament is invalid from defect of a universal purpose.

¹ Cf. Sporer-Bierbaum III, pr. 3, n. 257 ff.; Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 46 note.

² Suarez contends that in this case the sacrament of penance is formless (de poenit., disp. 20, sect. 5), whose opinion Lugo also defends (disp. 14, sect. 6), who (n. 88) says: "I do not see an argument by which it can efficaciously be rejected."

There is a controversy among theologians as to whether the sacrament of Penance can ever be valid without producing its effects in the soul at the time of its reception on account of some obstacle which is there. We saw above that this may be the case with Baptism and other sacraments. There is a special difficulty with regard to Penance, because the dispositions, whose absence is only an obstacle to grace given by other sacraments, enter into the substance of Penance, and so their absence would seem to destroy the sacrament itself. In spite of this, however, it is a probable opinion that at any rate in two cases the sacrament of Penance may be valid but unformed, as theologians say. The first case is when a penitent has forgotten some mortal sin for which he has never elicited an act of sorrow, but confesses other sins for which he is sorry for motives which are special to them and not universal. The second is when, through inculpable ignorance, the penitent thinks that it is not necessary to be sorry for all mortal sins confessed, provided there be the requisite sorrow for some. In these cases there will be all the elements necessary for the validity of the sacrament, which, however, cannot infuse grace into the soul on account of the presence there of grievous sin - still unrepented of.