Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 4.djvu/389

 CONTRITION

339

CONTRITION

rmitrary, all the doctors have insisted on the absolute 71' ri'ssity of grace for contrition that disposes to for- giveness (Bonavcnture, In Lib. Sent. IV, dist. xiv, I't. I, art. II, Q. ill; also dist. xvii, Pt. I, art. I, Q. iii; ci. St. Thomas, In Lib. Sent. IV). In keeping with this teaching of the Scriptures and the doctors, the Council of Trent defined: ''If anyone say that with- out the ir,spiration of the Holy Spirit and without His
 * ii 1 a man can repent in the way that is necessarj' for

i'l>t:iiningthe grace of justification, let him be anath-

ic) Universal. — The Council of Trent defined that ri'al contrition includes "a firm purpose of not sinning in the future"; consequently he who repents must i.^olve to avoid all sin. This doctrine is intimately 1 M I md up TN-ith the Catholic teaching concerning grace uimI repentance. There is no forgiveness without sor- row of soul, and forgiveness is always accompanied I y ( ■111 Ts grace; grace cannot coexist UNath sin; and, as a ci iiis('(iuence, one sin cannot be forgiven while another n mains for which there is no repentance. This is the (liar teaching of the Bible. The Prophet urged men tn t urn to God with their whole heart (Joel, ii, 12 sq.), aii'i Christ tells the doctor of the law that we must l(i\.> God with our whole mind, our whole strength I like, X, 27). Ezechiel insists that a man must ' n from all his evil ways" if he wish to live. The lastics inquired rather subtly into this question 1 they asked whether or not there must be a spe- r, .1:ict of contrition for every serious sin, and whether, in crder to be forgiven, one must remember at the i;i"inent all his grievous transgressions. To both ciu.'^tions they answered in the negative, judging that an art of sorrow which implicitly included all his sins «i.iiM be sufficient.

"I) Sovereign. — The Council of Trent insLsts that

tiui' contrition includes the firm will never to sin

aL;ain, so that no matter what evil may come, such

(■\ i! must be preferred to sin. This doctrine is surely

I lirist's: "What shall it profit a man if he gain the

\vli..Ii_> world and suffer the loss of his soul?" Theo-

lii^ians have discussed at great length whether or not

contrition which must be sovereign appreliatii'e, i. e.

ill iii;,irding sin as the greatest possible evil, must also

I xereign in degree and in intensity. The decision


 * cnerally been that sorrow need not be sovereign

I'lisively", for intensity makes no change in the

-;.i-itance of an act (Ballerini, Opus Morale: De Con-

tnrione; Bonaventure, In Lib. Sent. IV, dist. xxi,

I'l. I, art. II, Q. i).

"\TRITION IN THE SaCR.UUENT OF PeNANCE.

lition is not only a moral virtue, but the Council !• nt defined th.al it is a "part", nay more, quasi <fi, in the Sacrament of Penance. "The (quasi) ■iT of this sacrament consists of the acts of the satisfaction. These, inasmuch as they are by God's institution required in the penitent for the integrity of the sacrament and for the full and perfect remission of sin. are for this reason called parts of penance." In consequence of this decree of Trent theologians teach that sorrow for sin must be in some sense sacramental. La Croix went so far a.s to say that sorrow must be aroused with a view of going to confession, but this seems to be a.sking too much, most theologians think with Schieler-Heuser (Tlieory and Practice of Con- fession, p. 11.3) that it is sufficient if the sorrow co- exist in any way with the confession and is referred to it. Hence the precept of the Roman Ritual, "After the confessor has heard the confession he should try by earnest exhortation to move the peni- tent to contrition" (Schieler-Heuser, op. cit., p. Ill sqq.).
 * /int himself, namely, contrition, confession, and

Perfect Contrition Without the Sacrament. — Regarding that contrition which has for its motive the love of God, the Council of Trent declares: "Tlie Council further teaches that, though contrition may

sometimes be made perfect by charity and may recon- cile men to God before the actual reception of this sac- rament, still the reconciliation is not to be ascribed to the contrition apart from the desire for the sacrament which it includes." The following proposition (no. 32) taken from Baius was condemned by Gregory XIII: " That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always conjoined with forgiveness of sins." Per- fect contrition, with the desire of receiving the Sacra- ment of Penance, restores the sinner to grace at once. This is certainly the unanimous teaching of the Scho- lastic doctors (Peter Lombard in P. L., CXCII, 885; St. Thomas, In Lib. Sent. IV, ibid.; St. Bonaventure, In Lib. Sent. IV, ibid.). This doctrine they derived from Holy Writ. Scripture certainly ascribes to charity and the love of God the power to take away sin: "He that loveth me shall be loved by My Father"; "Many sins are forgiven her because she hath loved much". Since the act of perfect contri- tion implies necessarily this same love of God, theo- logians have ascribed to perfect contrition what Scrip- ture teaches belongs to charity. Nor is this strange, for in the Old Covenant there was some way of recov- ering God's grace once man had sinned. God wills not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live (Ezech., xxxiii, 11). This total turning to God corresponds to our idea of perfect con- trition; and if under the Old Law love sufficed for the pardon of the sinner, surely the coming of Christ and the institution of the Sacrament of Penance cannot be supposed to have increas(>d the difficulty of obtain- ing forgiveness. That the earlier Fathers taught the efficacy of sorrow for the remission of sins is very clear (Clement in P. G., I, .341 sqq.; Hermas in P. G., II, 894 sqq.; Chrysostom in P. G., XLIX, 285 sqq.), and this is particularly noticeable in all the commentaries on Luke, vii, 47. The Venerable Bede writes (P. L., XCII, 425): "What is love but fire; what is sin but rust? Hence it is said, many sins are forgiven her be- cause she hath loved much, as though to say, she hath burned away entirely the rust of sin, because she is inflamed w^th the fire of love." Theologians have inquired with much learning as to the kind of love that justifies without the Sacrament of Penance. All are agreed that pure, or disinterested, love (amor bene- rolentia:, amor amicilia:) suffices; when there is ques- tion of interested, or selfish, love (amor concupLscentia:) theologians hold that purely selfish love is not suffi- cient. WTien one furthennore asks what must be the formal motive in perfect love, there seems to be no real unanimity among the doctors. Some say that where there is perfect love God is loved for His great goodness alone; others, basing their contention on Scripture, think that the love of gratitude (amor grati- tudinis) is quite sufficient, because God's benevolence and love towards men are intimately united, nay, in- separable from His Di\'ine perfections (Hurter, Theol. Dog., Tliesis cc.xlv, Scholion iii, no. 3; Schieler-Heuser, op. cit., pp. 77 sq.).

Obligation of Eliciting the Act of Contrition. — In the very nature of things the sinner must repent before he can be reconciled with God (Sess. XIV, ch. iv, de C'ontritione, Fuit quovis tempore, etc.). Therefore he who has fallen into grievous sin must either make an act of perfect contrition or supple- ment the imperfect contrition by receiving the Sacra- ment of Penance; otherwise reconciliation with God is imjjossible. This obligation urges under pain of sin when there is danger of death. In danger of death, therefore, if a priest be not at hand to adminis- ter the sacrament, the sinner must make an effort to elicit an act of perfect contrition. The obligation of perfect contrition is also tirgent whensoever one has to exercise some act for which a state of grace is neces- sary and the .Sacrament of Penance is not accessible. Tlieologians have questioned how long a man may re- main in the state of sin, without making an effort to