Part III Chapter I §1: Perfect Contrition

Part III: The Three Acts of the Penitent — Contrition, Confession, Satisfaction

Chapter I: Contrition

§1: Perfect Contrition

PART III THE THREE ACTS OF THE PENITENT: CONTRITION, CONFESSION, AND SATISFACTION CHAPTER I CONTRITION 1. Contrition is defined by the Council of Trent as “sorrow of heart and detestation for sin committed, with the resolve to sin no more.” 1 As such a sorrow and resolve constitute the virtue of penance,2 it follows that to receive the Sacrament, one must have the virtue of penance. 2. Contrition, whether perfect or imperfect, in v order to be effective, must be (a) internal, i. e. a true sorrow of the heart and will ; (b) universal, i. e. it must comprise all mortal sins committed by the penitent; (c) supernatural, i. e. it must be inspired by l * Contritio est animi dolor ac de- proposito non peccandi de caetero.* testatio de peccato commisso cum (Sess. XIV, cap. 4)* 2 V. supra, pp. 1 sq. 132 supernatural grace and based upon theological faith as the “beginning, the root, and the foundation of justification” ; 3 (d) supreme or sovereign, not in intensity but appreciatively, i. e. the penitent must detest sin as the greatest of all evils.4 This sorrow must further be accompanied by a firm purpose of amendment, i. e. a resolution with the grace of God to avoid sin and its proximate occasions. Without this resolve there can be no true contrition. A pi^rpose of amendment may be either explicit or implicit. Theologians are not agreed as to whether the Sacrament of Penance requires for its validity an explicit (i. e. formal) resolution, or whether an implicit resolution is sufficient, though Ballerini seems to have established the proposition that, theoretically at least, a purely virtual resolution suffices.5 3. The most important division of contrition, from the dogmatic point of view, is that into perfect and imperfect contrition. The latter is also called attrition. It is upon this distinction that nearly all dogmatic controversies regarding contrition turn. 8 Cfr. Prop, ab Innoc. XI. Damn., von den hi. Sakramenten, Vol. II, Prop. 57: * Probabile est sufKcere 5th ed., pp. 81 sqq. attritionem naturalem, modo hone- 5 Ballerini, Opus Morale, ed. Palstam.* (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. mieri, Vol. V, 3rd ed., pp. 75 sqq., 1207). Prati 1900. 4 Cfr. Oswald, Die dogtnat. Lehre f SECTION i PERFECT CONTRITION ARTICLE I PERFECT CONTRITION DEFINED The distinction between perfect contrition and attrition is mainly based upon the effects produced by each. Perfect contrition justifies outside of, and previous to, the Sacrament of Penance, whereas attrition justifies solely in connection with the Sacrament. Besides this twofold effect it is necessary to consider the intrinsic nature of each and the motives by which it may be inspired. i. Nominal Definition. — Contrition {contritio) is derived from the Latin word conterere, which means to grind, pound, or pulverize. The Vulgate employs the term to denote compunction of heart,1 deep humiliation,2 and utter helplessness,8 intimating by this usage that contrition, as it were, grinds the heart of the sinner to dust, in order that he may become favorably disposed l Is. XV, 5. 2 I* LXV, 14. 8 Jer. VIII, 21. for the influence of grace. In this sense contritio is synonymous with compunctio cordis. Attrition (attritio) is derived from after ere, to rub against. The word does not occur in the Vulgate in the technical meaning of present-day theology, but appears to have originated in the Schools about 1230.* St. Thomas uses ” contritio ” in the sense of a profound sorrow which, as it were, utterly crushes, while “attritio” merely softens the heart and arouses a “certain displeasure” (quandam displicentiam) , without, however, effecting true compunction. The Angelic Doctor nowhere distinguishes contrition and attrition by the motives which inspire them, as modern theologians do and must do.5 2. Real Definition. — As the specific difference between various virtues lies in the formal motive inspiring them, it is necessary to search for the motive of perfect contrition in order to obtain a real definition. All theologians agree in teaching that contrition is perfect when inspired by charity, that is, a perfect love of God (contritio caritate per feet a). We love God 4 Sefc Morinus, De Contr. et Attrit., Paris 1703. — Harnack fails to perceive that contritio and attritio are used in radically different meanings in the writings of the preTridentine theologians. The true sense must often be ascertained with much difficulty from the context Cfr. Mausbach in the Mayence Katholik, 1897, I» 48 «qq«i 97 sqq.; W. Rutten, Studien zur mittelalterlichen Busslehre, pp. 15 sqq., Mftniter 190a. 5 St Thomas, 5”. Theol., Suppl., qu. 1, art. 2, ad 2. — Cfr. J. Cottier, Der hi. Thomas von Aquin und die vortridentinischen Thomisten fiber die Wirkungen des Bussakramentes, PP« 37 aqq-t Freiburg 1904.— On the teaching of the medieval Scholastics -see N. Paulus in the Innsbruck Zeittchrift fUr kath. Theologie, 1904, pp. 1 sqq.. 410 sqq., 449 «qq— On the alleged laxism of Duns Scotus see P. Minges, O. F. M., in the same review, 1901, pp. 231 tqq. perfectly when we love Him as the supreme good for His own sake and above all else. “Caritas est amor Dei propter se super omnia.‘9 To understand this definition we must know wherein the essence of charity (as an act, not as a habit) consists. a) We can love God either as He is in Himself, for His own sake, on account of His own goodness (summum bonum in se), or because He is good to us (summum bonum nobis). If we love Him for His own sake, we have what is called the love of benevolence or friendship (amor benevolentiae s. amicitiae). If we love Him because He is good to us, we have the so-called amor concupiscentiae. a) This difference of motive gives rise to a difference of quality in the act of charity underlying contrition. But there are also differences of degree within each species. Both the amor benevolentiae and the amor concupiscentiae admit of degrees.6 Perfect charity is the love of God as the supreme good for His own sake (propter se). P) To avoid misunderstanding it will be well to add an explanation. Perfect charity, like- friendship, though it loves its object primarily for that object’s sake, takes pleasure in the act. Fenelon’s view that perfect charity must be absolutely disinterested (amour desinteresse) was condemned by the Church. Personal pleasure and selfinterest, however, must remain strictly subordinate to the «F. infra, pp. 153 §qq. interest of God. The devout Catholic finds greater pleasure in contemplating the divine perfections and enhancing the divine glory, than in the joy which his own soul derives from that contemplation. b) What does it mean to love God above all else (super omnia) ? To love God above all else does not mean to love Him with all the ardor of which the heart is capable. Such affection is beyond the power of the human will. The very notion of an absolute maximum of finite love involves a contradiction. Even relatively speaking, no matter how ardently one loves, a higher degree of affection is always conceivable, and hence the relatively highest degree of intensity would have to be sought for in the greatest effort of the will (totus conatus possibilis), which is possible with the grace of God, but nowhere demanded by Revelation. All that is demanded is that our love of God be supreme or sovereign in estimation, or appreciatively; in other words, that we love God with both intellect and will so as to prefer nothing else to Him. A mother may love her child more ardently than she loves God, yet her charity will be perfect if she is ready to give up her darling rather than see him commit a mortal sin. c) When contrition is inspired by a perfect love of God it is called perfect. Perfect contrition, therefore, may be defined as sorrow for sin inspired by a perfect love of God. What theologians term a preliminary stage of perfect contrition is the so-called love of grati 

138 THE THREE ACTS OF THE PENITENT. tude (amor gratitudinis) , which is quite often identical with perfect contrition or at least naturally develops into it.7 3. The “Amor Castae Concupiscentiae.” — A small group of eminent divines (Bossuet, Bolgeni, Ballerini, Hurter, and, to a certain extent at least, De Lugo and Palmier i) hold that contrition, to be perfect, need be no more than a love of God above all else for our sake (amor, castae concupiscentiae). This opinion is by no means certain, though it may claim some degree of probability. Its defenders appeal to Holy Scripture, to St. Augustine, and to several eminent Scholastic authors. Such texts as Ps. XLI, 2: ” As the hart panteth after the fountains of water, so my soul panteth after thee, O God,” and Phil. I, 23 : ” I have a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ,” are inspired by something more than love of God for His own sake, they say. St. Augustine repeatedly extols the amor concupiscentiae as the true love of God. “Love God as God,” he says in one place, “there is nothing better than Him : desire Him, long for Him.” 8 Hugh of St. Victor 9 censures certain pseudo-mystics because they decried man’s longing for the beatific vision as an impure 7 Cfr. Palmieri, De Poenit., thes. Quomo do, inquiunt, mercenarii non 22, Prati 1896. sumus, si Deum propter hoc diligimus 8 ” Anna Deum tamquom Deum, ut praemium ab eo aceipiamuft Illo melius nihil est: ipsum desidera, … Qui hoc dicunt, virtutem dilec* ipsum concupisce.* (In Ps., 85, n. tionis non intellegunt. Quid est 8). enim diligere nisi ipsum velle ha9De Sacram., II, 13, 8: *Ego beret Non aliud ab ipso, sed ipsum, homo jic diligi nollem a vobis… . hoc est gratis”

affection. We shall pronounce neither for nor against this engaging view.10 ARTICLE 2 Rkfect Contrition as a Means of Justification According to the Council of Trent “it sometimes happens that contrition is perfect through charity and reconciles man with God before the Sacrament [of Penance] is actually received.” 1 The Council originally intended to declare that perfect charity always (semper), that is, by its very nature, effects immediate justification,2 but gave up this intention out of respect for Pope Hadrian VI and Cardinal Cajetan, who had taken the opposite view. When Baius ventured to deny that, except in case of necessity or martyrdom, perfect contrition, even if accompanied by a desire to receive the Sacrament of Penance, remits mortal sin,3 his assertion was condemned by Pius V.4 1. Proof from Sacred Scripture. — The Ancient Covenant knew neither Baptism nor Pen10 For a more detailed discussion the student is referred to De Lugo, De Poenit., disp. 5, sect 1, and Palxnieri, De Poenit, thes. 23. 1 Sess. XIV, cap. 4: ”… contritionem hanc aliquando caritate per fee tarn esse contingit hominemque Deo reconciliare, priusquam hoc sacramentum actu suscipiatur.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 898). a Pallavicini, Hist. Cone. Trid., XII, 10, 27. z”Per contritionem etiam cum caritate perfecta et cum voto suscipiendi sacramentum coniunctam non remittitur crimen extra casum necessitatis aut martyrii sine actuali susceptione sacramenti.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1071). 4 Ibid. Cfr. Cone. Trid., Sess. VI, cap. 4; Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 243 sqq. ance, and under it adult sinners had no other means of obtaining forgiveness than perfect contrition.5 It is impossible to assume that the New Testament is inferior in this respect to i the Old. Consequently, perfect contrition of itself, i. e. without the Sacrament, though not without a desire for the same, must have the power to forgive sins in the New Dispensation also. Our Lord Himself expressly asserts this when He says: “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him… .” 6 Jesus here evidently speaks of that effective love of God for which the latter gives His own love in return, thereby establishing a state of mutual friendship. As this friendship is incompatible with the enmity resulting from mortal sin, perfect contrition, which springs from perfect love, must effect sanctifying grace. The love of one’s neighbor for God’s sake has the same formal object as perfect charity. Cfr. i John IV, 7: ” Dearly beloved, let us love one another, for charity is of God; and every one that loveth [his neighbor for the sake of God] is born of God.” Here, again, perfect love and regeneration (i. e. justification) are so closely bound up as to exclude the state of mortal sin. The opposition between love and sin being absolute, it follows that 6 Cfr. Deut IV, 29; Ezech. XVIII, qui diligit me. Qui autem diligit 21; XXXIII, 12. me, diligetur a Patre meo, et ego 6 John XIV, 21: Qui habet diligam eum. (Cfr. x John III, 9; mandate mea et servat ea, Me est IV, x6).

the justifying power of love flows from its every essence and therefore invariably accompanies it. 2. Proof from Tradition. — The teaching of Scripture is echoed by the Fathers and Scholastics. St John Chrysostom has the following beautiful simile in one of his homilies : ” As a fire which has taken possession of a forest, cleans it out thoroughly, so the fire of love, wheresoever it falls, takes away and blots out every- 1 thing that could injure the divine seed, and purges the earth for the reception of that seed. Where love is, there all evils are taken away.” 7 St Chrysologus says: “You wish to be absolved? Then love ! Charity covereth a multitude of sins. What f is worse than the crime of denial? And yet Peter was able to expiate this [crime] solely by love.” 8 Among the Schoolmen, Sylvius held a different view, which was, however, rejected by De Lugo and others.9 That this important doctrine has not yet filtered through into all our catechisms is not the fault of the Catechismus Romanus, which clearly and positively “teaches: “Such is the efficacy of true contrition … that by its benefit we at once obtain from the Lord the pardon of all our sins.” 10 7 Horn, in 2 Tim., 7, n. 3 (Migne, ments, Vol. I, pp. 245 sqq. — Cfr. P. G., LXII, 640). also De Augustinis, De Re Sacra* 8 ” Absolvi visf A ma. Caritas co- ment., Vol. II, 2nd ed., pp. 38 sqq. operit multitudinem peccatorum. 0 De Lugo, De Poenit., disp. 5, Negationis crimine quid peiusf Et sect. 8: * Quod sit contra omnes tamen Petrus amore solo valuit Jioc theologos, clarius est quam ut probadelere.* Serm., 94 (Migne, P. L„ Hone vel inductione indigeat.* LII, 406). — Other Patristic texts 10 Cat. Rom., P. II, cap. 5, qu. 34: * quoted in Pohle-Preuss, The Sacra* * Ex quo licet cognoscere, vera* con”

The Church invites the faithful to take advantage of this teaching by granting indulgences for making an act of perfect contrition and by permitting the reception of all the Sacraments of the living (with the exception of the Eucharist) 11 on the sole condition that the recipient first make an act of perfect contrition. Thus the Pontifical of Popes Clement VIII and Urban VIII says in regard to Confirmation: “Adults ought first to confess their sins before they are confirmed, or at least have a sincere sorrow for their mortal sins, if they have committed any.” 12 This does not, of course, mean that the Church dispenses anyone from the duty of confessing his sins, for it is an article of faith that Christians can obtain remission of mortal sins only through the power of the keys ; 18 but this condition is fulfilled by the votum sacramenti, — the desire to receive the Sacrament, — which is included in perfect contrition.14 3. Theological Controversies. — Mastrius and a few other Scotist theologians held that justification can be effected by other virtuous acts besides perfect charity and contrition. This opinion is difficult to reconcile with the Tridentine teaching. Utterly untenable is the view that perfect contrition depends for its efficacy upon the intensity or duration of the act. tritionis … earn vim esse, ut illius beneHcio omnium delictorum veniam statim a Domino impetremus.” llCfr. Cone. Trid., Sess. XIIIf cap. 7. 12” Adulti deberent prius peccata confiteri et postea confirmari, vel saltern de mortalibus, si in ea inciderint, conterantur.* 18 V. supra, pp. 58 sqq. 14 Pope Sixtus IV, in 1479, condemned the following proposition taught by Peter of Osma: * Peccata mortalia quantum ad culpam et poenam alterius saeculi, delentur per solam cordis contritionem sine ordine ad cloves” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 724). Cfr. Bellarmine, De Poenit., II, cap. 14. a) Some Scotistic writers maintain that contrition, in order to effect justification, need not be inspired by perfect charity, but may be based on such inferior motives as justice, obedience, and gratitude, provided only that it is directed to God.15 Vasquez combats this view as erroneous, whereas Suarez and De Lugo concede that it has a certain probability, though the latter cautiously adds: “It is necessary to hold, in conformity with the common teaching of theologians, that contrition, to be sufficient for justification, must spring from a peculiar motive of charity, i. e. the love of God above all else.” 16 In matter of fact both the Bible and Tradition teach that the only kind of contrition apt to effect immediate justification is that inspired by perfect charity. This teaching is confirmed by the Tridentine Council, which, distinguishing between perfect contrition based upon perfect charity, and imperfect contrition (or attrition), denies that the latter has any justifying power whatever outside of the Sacrament of Penance, and adds that among the motives of attrition is hope, the virtue next in rank to charity, which justifies the sinner only in connection with the Sacrament.17 If hope, which is the second of the theological virtues, cannot effect justification without the Sacrament, this must be true a fortiori of the other virtues. b) Among the theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries some held that perfect contrition, to be 15 Mastrius, De Poenit., disp. 5, 16 De Lugo, De Poenit., disp. 5, qu. 5, n. 95: * Adhuc tamen con- sect. 1, n. 4: * Dicendum omnino tritio et poenitentia de peccatis ex est cum communi sententia contrimotivo iustitiae, quatenus peccata tionem suMcientem ad iustitiam desunt contra debitum et contra ius here orWi ex peculiari motivo caritaDei, vet ex alio motivo spectante ad tis, scil. Dei super omnia dilecti.* Deum probabiliter videtur esse suf- 17 Sess. XIV, cap. 4. Hciens … ad iustificandum peccatorem.*

effective without the Sacrament, must have a certain degree of intensity. Hadrian VI demanded that the act be elicited with the greatest possible effort on the part of the penitent.18 Peter Soto1* taught that perfect contrition must exceed in intensity every other sorrow of which the human heart is capable. Juenin,20 Berti, Gazzaniga, Estius, Merbes, and especially Chr. Lupus,21 contented themselves with demanding simply “an intense charity.” 22 These demands one and all were new and unheard of in the Schools. For the older Scholastics had taught with St. Thomas that, ” no matter how slight one’s sorrow, so long as it suffices to constitute contrition, it blots out all guilt.” 28 In this they were of one mind with the Fathers, who knew no distinction between such intense charity as effects justification, and a weaker one which falls short of this effect.2* As for the official teaching of the Church, the Tridentine Council speaks, not of a caritas perfecta in contradistinction to caritas remissa, but solely of a contritio caritate perfecta, which invariably justifies the sinner, provided his love of God be sincere.25 Closely related to, though not identical with, the view just criticized is that which holds that an act of contrition, to be perfect and productive of justification outside of the Sacrament of Penance, must last a definite length of time. It is customary to attribute this view to Duns 18 In Sent., IV, dist. de Poenit., qu. 2: ” totus conatus possibilis” (V. supra, p. 137.) 19 De Poenit, lect. 14 sq. 20 De Poenit., qu. 4, c. 4. 21 De Contr. et Attr., c. 7. 22 Caritas intense 28 6’. Theol., Suppl., qu. 5, art. 3: * Quantumcunque parvus sit dolor, dummodo ad rationem contritionis suMciat, omnem culpam delet* 24 Christ’s mandate (Matth. XXII, 37) may refer to appreciation, but it has nothing to do with intensity. 25 The same conclusion may be deduced from an analysis of the condemned propositions of Baius; cfr. Palmieri, De Poenit., pp. 266 sq. CONTRITION H5 Scotus, though the Scotists deny that their master entertained it. The Jansenistically-minded theologians of a later epoch defended this opinion vigorously. ” The ancient Church was convinced/’ says e. g. Juenin, “that contrition is not the work of one day, but of many months, nay sometimes of years.” 2* Why not indeed of a whole life-time? This opinion is refuted by the same considerations which we have adduced against the one that makes the efficacy of contrition dependent on the intensity of its underlying motive. Though the gradual development of perfect contrition through the preliminary stages of faith, fear, hope, repugnance, etc., undoubtedly requires time, the act itself can be performed in an instant.27 Certain Gallic bishops who had refused absolution to dying sinners were reminded by Pope Celestine the First that conversion may take place instantaneously and must be gauged by the state of a man’s conscience rather than by any specified measure of time.28 ARTICLE 3 PERFECT CONTRITION NOT A REQUISITE OF SACRAMENTAL ABSOLUTION i. State of the Question. — It cannot be denied that, under the influence of Peter Lombard 26 De Poenit., qu. 7, c. 6: ” Toti antiquitati fuit persuasum, contrir tionem non esse unius diet opus, sed multorum mensiutn, into et nonnunquam annorum* 27 Cfr. St Thomas, Summa Theol, III, qu. 89, art. 2: * Unde in eodent instanti est gratiae infusio cum praedicto nxotu liberi arbitrii, … in quo quidem motu comprekenditur actus poenitentiae.* — For scriptural proofs see Tepe, Inst. Theol., Vol. IV, pp. 431 «q. 28 Ep. 4 ad Episc. Prov. Vien. et Narb., n. 3: * Et desperavit de dementia Dei, qui cum ad subveniendum morienti sufhcere vel momen to posse non credidit. . • . Vera ergo ad Deum conversio in ultimis positorum mente potius aestimanda est quam tempore.” (Migne, P. L., L» 43i). — Confirmatory Patristic i46 THE THREE ACTS OF THE PENITENT (+ 1 164), some of the older Scholastics, notably Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, Ockam, and Thomas of Strassburg (+ 1357), regarded perfect contrition as a necessary requisite of Penance and held that the priestly absolution is purely declarative.1 Though not all the writers cited by Launoy2 held this view, a number of Scholastic theologians certainly did believe with St. Bonaventure that ” the power of the keys does not extend to the guilt of sin; and no priest would venture to absolve anyone except on the presumption that God had already forgiven him.” 8 The Seraphic Doctor (though he elsewhere contents himself with demanding a contritio existimata, which he calls attritio), undoubtedly meant that the Sacrament of Penance, like the Eucharist, confers the grace of justification only per accidens on those who believe in good faith that they are already justified through perfect contrition.4 In vain have the latest editors of St. Bonaventure’s writings texts collected by Bellarmine, De Poenit., II, 11. lCfr. Peter Lombard, Sent., IV, dist. 18, c. 6: * [Sacerdotes\ ergo peccata dimittunt vel retinent, dum dimissa a Deo vel retenta indicant et ostendunt* 2 Opera, Vol. I, De Mente Cone. Trid. circa Contrit. et Attrit., Geneva 1731. 8 St Bonaventure, Comment, in Sent; IV, dist. 18, p. i, art. a, qu. 1: ” Potestas clavium proprie loquendo non se extendit ad culpam; nunquam enim sacerdos absolveret quemquam, de quo non praesumeret quod esset absolutus a Deo.* 4 Comment, in Sen*., IV, dist 17, p. a, art. 2, qu. 3: * Sicut dictum est quod non tenemur ad Eucharistiam accedere cum caritate secundum veritatem, sed sufticit quod secundum probabilitatem, sic dico quod ad sacramentum poenitentiae non est necesse quod accedat habens caritatern vel dispositionem ad caritatem suMcientem secundum veritatem, sed suMcit secundum probabilitatem. Haec autem dispositio attritio est, quae frequenter ob confessionem superadiunctam et absolutionem socerdotis formatur per gratiam, ut Hat contritio.” CONTRITION 147 endeavored to defend their fellow-Franciscan against the chaise of an exaggerated Contritionism now no longer tenable. The erroneous teaching of St. Bonaventure on this point was counteracted by the authority of St. Thomas Aquinas, who vigorously insisted on the power of the keys and identified the effect of that power (absolution) with the effect of Penance.5 Durandus of St. Pour^ain (-j- 1332) and Henry of Ghent expressed themselves in a similar manner. Under the influence of Scotus6 and his followers this view triumphed in the Schools. Since the Council of Trent7 theologians are practically unanimous in teaching that it is un-Catholic to say that perfect contrition is essential to the validity of sacramental absolution.8 2. Contritionism Refuted. — Assuming that the first and principal effect of the Sacrament of Penance is the reconciliation of the sinner with God (justification), the refutation of Contritionism follows from the intrinsic incompatibility of these two propositions : ( 1 ) Sacramental absolution is invalid and consequently inefficacious without perfect contrition; (2) Perfect contrition justifies the sinner outside and before the reception of the Sacrament of Penance. These two propositions, under the assumption mentioned, are con5 For a full proof of this assertion T Cfr. Sess. XIV, cap. 4. see J. Gottler, Der hi. Thomas von 8 Cfr. the 58th of the propositions Aquin und die vortridentinischen of Baius condemned by the Holy See; Thomisten Uber die Wirkungen des also the 36th of the condemned propBussokramentes, pp. 31 sqq., Frei- ositions of the Council of Pistoia.— burg: 1904. On an orthodox species of Contri6 Comment, in Sent., IV, dist. 14, tionism see infra, Sect 2, Art. 3. art 4* 148 THE THREE ACTS OF THE PENITENT tradictory, that is to say, if the first is true, the second must be false, and vice versa. Now the second is true, and therefore the first must be false. Le Drou tries to avoid this patent contradiction by arguing9 that the Sacrament of Penance exercises on those who have perfect contrition a retroactive influence similar to that which the death of Christ exercised in justifying the patriarchs of the pre-Christian era. This is tantamount to asserting that perfect contrition justifies the sinner not so much by its own power as in virtue of the subsequent sacramental absolution. We ask : How can the Sacrament produce a retroactive effect when the penitent dies immediately after making an act of perfect contrition without receiving absolution ? How can something that never existed exercise an influence? Evidently then, in such a case, perfect charity (contrition) would not justify at all, — which is contrary to the teaching of the Church. The parallel with the death of Christ proves nothing, for the atonement was a historical fact. It is further contended in support of the view we are combating that, as perfect contrition is admittedly inefficacious without a desire to receive the Sacrament, its justifying power is derived wholly from the sacramentum in voto, in which the power of the keys is, as it were, exercised in advance. This contention, though it can claim the authority of the Angelic Doctor,10 is not 9 De Contrit. et Attrit., c. 5-6, virtute sacramenti poenitentiae.” — Rome 1707. For ? more detailed explanation see 10 St. Thomas, De Veritate, qu. M. Buchberger, Die Wirkungen des 28, art 8, ad. 2: ” ContriUo, in- Bussakramentes, pp. 134 sqq., Freiquantum habet virtutem clavium in burg 1 901; J. Gottler, Der hi. Thomas voto, sic sacramentaliter operator in von Aquin und die vortridentinischen

well founded. The votum sacramenti is not the cause of perfect contrition. At most it can only be a condition thereof, — a condition with which God dispensed in the Old Testament. The advocates of this view really deprive the Sacrament of its efficacy. According to Le Drou (not St. Thomas) the Sacrament itself {sacramentum in re) cannot directly effect the remission of sins because perfect contrition, and consequently the state of grace, are necessary requisites for the validity of absolution. If the sacramentum in re cannot effect forgiveness, much less can the sacramentum in voto produce this effect. If the actual taking of a medicine will not cure a disease, how can the mere desire for it restore the patient to health? It should be noted, also, that the Council of Trent places the efficacy of the Sacrament of Penance not in the votum sacramenti, but in the forma, i. e. the words of absolution.11 A third argument alleged in defense of the theory we are combating runs as follows: If the Sacrament of Penance did not remit sins directly ex opere operato, but required the state of grace effected by perfect contrition, the priestly absolution would still exercise two distinctly sacramental effects, viz.: it would increase sanctifying grace and remit some of the temporal punishments due to sin. But Penance is not a Sacrament of the living; it is a Sacrament of the dead, and as such must be able to justify the sinner as completely as Baptism. To limit the efficacy of absolution to the remission of temporal penalties would be to degrade the Sacrament of Penance to the level of an institution for the granting of indulgences, and to deny that the Church has the right to compel sinners to Thcmisten fiber die Wirkungen des 11 Seas. XIV, cap. 3: … in Bussakramentes, pp. 45 sqq., Frei- qua Iforma] praecipue ipsius vis sita burg 1904. est.

appear before her tribunal,12 for the temporal penalties due to sin can be cancelled by works of satisfaction in this world (satis f actio) as well as suffering in purgatory (satispassio).1* 12 V. supra, pp. 58 sqq. by Palmieri, De Poenit., thei. 25, 13 Other objection! are answered Prati 1896.