Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 2.djvu/88

 ATTUDA

66

AUBERY

because it is the clear teaching of the Church that perfect contrition justifies the sinner even without the Sacrament of Penance. If perfect contrition, then, were always necessary, why did Christ institute a particular sacrament, since jvistification would alwaj-s be imparted independently of the sacramental ceremonj-? If attrition is sufhcient for justification in the Sacrament of Penance, then there seems no reason to deny its sufficiency when there is question of remitting sin through baptism, for the reason given above will apply equally in this place. The question has also been asked apropos of attrition, wlien one receives a sacrament of the living in mortal sin, of which sin he is not conscious, will attrition with the sacrament suffice unto justification? The answer is generally given in the affirmative. See St. Thomas, Summa'Theol., Ill, 2, a. 7 ad 2"", 7ed., 2; Billot, De Pccnit., p. 152.

Conditions. — That attrition maj' make for justifi- cation, it must be interior, supernatural, universal, and sovereign. (See Conditions in article Contrition.) Interior, for the Council of Trent requires that it should exclude the will to sin. Supernatural, for Innocent XI condemned the proposition, "Probabile est sufficere attritionem naturalem modo lionestam ". Universal, for the motives of attrition (fear of hell, loss of heaven, etc.) are of such a nature as to em- brace all sins. Sovereign, for here again the ordinarj' motives of attrition (fear of liell, etc.) make one hate sin above all other evil. It has been questioned whether this would be true if the motive were fear of temporal punishments (Genicot. T. 11, n. 274; Bil- lot, De Pa?nit., 159 sq.). The Reformers denied the honesty and godliness of attrition, and held that it sim- ply made man a liypocrite. (Bull of Leo X, Exurge Domine, prop. VI; Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, can. iv.) They were followed by Baius, Jansen, and his disciples, who taught that fear without charity was bad, since it proceeded not from the love of God. but love of self (see prop. 7, 14. 15, condemned by Alexander ^TII, 7 December, 1690; also 44, 61, 62, condemned by Clement X, " Uni- genitus ", 8 September, 1717. Also Bull of Pius VI, "Auctorem Fidei ", prop. 25).

Catholic ^Titers in the seventeenth century ques- tioned, whether attrition must of necessity be ac- companied at least by the beginning of the love of God, and, that granted, whether such love was a disinterested love of God for His o^\^l sake, or whether it might not be that love termed concupi,<<centiee, or love of God because He is our great good. Some held that in even,' real act of attrition there must be the beginning of love; others denied categorically this position, exacting only that sorrow which ex- cludes affection for sin, and hope of pardon; others insisted that there must be at least a beginning of that love which has been termed above com-upis- ceiviice; while still others exact only that love which begets hope. On these opinions see Vacant, Diet, de tbeol., s. v. Attrition, cols. 2252, 2253, 2254, etc. On the controversy, particularly in Belgium, see DoUinger and Reusch (Diet., col. 2219). The contro- versy waxed so warm that Alexander VII issued a decree, 6 May, 1667, in which he declares his distress at the almost scandalously bitter disputes waged by certain scholastic theologians as to whether the act of attrition which is conceived through fear of hell, but excludes the will of sinning and counts on obtaining the mercy of recovering grace through the Sacrament of Penance, requires in addition some act of love of God, and then "enjoins on all of whatever rank, under pain of incurring the severest ecclesiasti- cal penalties, not to presume in future when discuss- ing the aforesaid act of attrition to brand with any mark of theological censure, or wrong, or contempt, either one or the other of the two opinions; that denying the necessity of some sort of love of Ciod

[negantem necessitatem aliqualis diledionis Dei] in the attrition conceived through fear of hell, which to- day (1667) seems the one more generally held by scholastic theologians, or that affirmuig the necessity of the said love, until something shall have been defined in this matter by this Holy See." The au- thoritative statement of .Alexander VII leaves the question still open as Benedict XIV teaches in "De Synodo ', Bk. VII, xiii, n. 9. Still it is clear that Alexander considered as more probable the opinion stating attrition as sufficient for justification in the Sacrament of Penance even if it included not the beginning of love. The censure lata: senlentio' was omitted in the " ApostoHca; Sedis ". On the formula, "Ex attrito fit contritus ", cf. Vacant, Diet, de theol., col. 2256 sqq.

Edw.\rd J. H.\NN.\.

Attuda, a titular see of Phrj'gia in Asia Minor. whose episcopal list (431-879) is given in Gams (446).

I.EQriEX. OriVns Christ. (1740\ I, 825-826; SJirrR, Did. of Greek and Roman Geogr., I, 336.

Aubaxede, Je.\n-Michel-d'Astorg, canon regular, and Vicar Capitular of Pamiers, b. 1639; d. 4 August, 1692. He was educated at Toulouse (France), en- tered the Seminarj' of Pamiers, and later joined the canons regular, who formed the cathedral chapter of that diocese. After the death of the bishop, Francois Caulet, Aubarede was chosen vicar capitular. .\s administrator of the diocese, he took up and carried on vigorously the resistance of Caulet to the royal demands in the matter of the Regalia. He refused to recognize royal nominations to local ecclesiastical benefices, and excommunicated the canons appointed by the king, when they attempted to exercise their office. He was arrested by royal order, and im- prisoned for six years at Caen, where he died. His courageous resistance is remarkable at a time when ecclesiastical servility in France had reached its acme. B. Jungmann remarks (in Herder, K. L.. I, 1567) that the well-known Jansenistic rigorism of Caulet and his clergj- was partly responsible for their stubborn defiance of Louis XIV; they rightly feared that the nominees of the king would not be- long to their faction.

QuERix, L'Assembte^ du clerge de France de 1682.

Thomas J. Shah.\n.

Aubennont, Jean-.\ntoine d', of Bois-le-D\ic, theologian, d. 22 Xovember, 1686. He joined the Dominicans in 1633, taught philosophy and theology in several convents of his order, was made doctor of theology at Louvain in 1652, and president of the local Dominican college in 1653. His theological WTitings are mostly in defence of papal infallibility (1682) and against the Gallican teachings of the Declaration of 1682. Shortly before his death he defended against Papebroch St. Thomas of Aquin's authorship of the Mass for Corpus Christi.

QcETiF-EcH.tRD, .55. O.P., II, 709; Vackst, Did. de Thiol. Calh., I, 2203.

Thomas J. Shahan.

Aubery, Joseph, Jesuit missionary in Canada, b. at Gisors in Xormandy, 10 May, 1673; d. at St. Francois, Canada, 2 July, 1755, At the age of seventeen he entered the Society of Jesus, and for four years studied in Paris. He arrived in Canada in 1694 and completed his studies at Quebec, where he was also instructor for five years, and where he was ordained in 1700. Assigned to the Abnaki mission, he re-established in 1701 the mission at Medoctec on the St. John River, which appears to ha\e been abandoned by the Franciscans about a year earlier. In 1708 he was given charge of the Abnaki reduction at St. Francois, and exercised the apostolate in that single mission for nearly half a century, .\uben,' is said to have been an able linguist, but unfortunately his numerous MSS., with