Part III Chapter I §2: Imperfect Contrition — Attrition

§2: Imperfect Contrition — Attrition

SECTION 2 IMPERFECT CONTRITION, OR ATTRITION

Article 1: Attrition Defined

ATTRITION DEFINED i. The Motives of Contrition in General. — Perfect Contrition can spring from only one motive, viz.: charity or perfect love of God. Imperfect contrition, or attrition, on the other hand, may be inspired by various motives. As not every form of attrition suffices for the valid reception of Penance, it is important to know what motives are insufficient or hardly sufficient for the Sacrament. What causes a person to be sorry for his sins? a) The Council of Trent1 declares that “contrition, which holds the first place among the … acts of the penitent, is a sorrow of mind and detestation for sin committed/’ inspired by one of the following motives : (1) perfect charity (caritas), which calls forth perfect contrition, or contrition proper; (2) the “turpitude of sin” (turpitudo peccati) ; (3) the ” loss of eternal happiness and the incurring of 1 Sess. XIV, cap. 4; can. 5. 151 eternal damnation” (atnissio aeternae beatitudinis et aeterme damnations incursus) ; (4) the ” fear of hell and of punishment ” (gehennae et poenae). The last three are expressly designated by the holy Synod as motives of ” that imperfect contrition which is called attrition,,, 2 and which, ” with the hope of pardon,” must ” exclude the wish to sin.” 8 A little reflection will show that the four motives enumerated by the Council may be reduced to three, namely, charity, fear, and hope. b) That this enumeration is exhaustive appears from the following considerations: A man who is sorry for his sins, is sorry either because sin is an evil done to God (malum Deo), or because it is an evil done to himself (malum homini). If his contrition is inspired by the first-mentioned motive, i. e. perfect charity, which not only loves God as the highest good above all else, but likewise abhors whatever is opposed to Him, his contrition is perfect.4 All other kinds of sorrow are necessarily imperfect. The sorrow which a man feels because sin is an evil opposed to his own welfare, may be twofold, according as he regards sin as a malum culpae, i. e. guilt, or a malum- poenae, i. e. an offense deserving of punishment. In the former case contrition arises from the turpitude of sin as opposed to the different virtues. Its leading motive is an imperfect love of God. In the latter case the detestation of sin is inspired by the fear of losing eternal happiness (poena damni), which forms the object of the theological virtue of hope, or by the fear of in2 Sess. XIV, cap. 4. 4 V, supra, Sect i, Art. 1, pp. 134 8 Loco cit. : * si voluntatem pec* sqq. candi excludat cum spe veniae.*

curring eternal damnation (poena sensus) and other, temporal, punishments that inspire the human heart with a dread of divine justice. c) It is to be observed that love, fear, and hope, as well as the motives inspired by them, cannot exist separately, but always go hand in hand, so that, when one is formally present, the other two are latent in the soul, only waiting to be called forth. We shall try to explain our meaning a little more fully. 2. The Three Stages of Contrition. — Theologians distinguish three stages of contrition according to the form assumed by the underlying motives of love, fear, and hope. a) The first is perfect contrition, inspired by that perfect love of God which is called charity par excellence. Perfect contrition reconciles the sinner with God before the Sacrament of Penance is actually received.5 As the love of God cannot be entirely separated from man’s love for himself and his own welfare, charity virtually includes the theological virtue of hope, though it is to be remarked that some of the greatest saints have possessed charity in such a heroic degree that they were willing to give up all hope of heavenly beatitude and endure eternal torments if they could only continue to love God.6 In this stage fear, which is never entirely absent, assumes its highest form and becomes what theologians call timor Ulialis, dreading neither punishment nor pain, but solely the divine displeasure. I V. supra, Sect, i, Art. a. « Cfr. Rom. IX, 3.

b) The second or intermediary stage of contrition is also based on the amor concupiscentiae, i. e. that love by which a creature is attracted to God as its greatest good (Deus summum bonum nobis).7 At this stage the hope of eternal happiness is uppermost in the soul. It is in this that the amor concupiscentiae, also called amor spei, essentially differs from perfect charity.8 To the sinner’s hope of eternal happiness corresponds the fear of losing heaven {poena damni), or suffering the torments of hell (poena sensus) and, possibly, other punishments of a temporal nature. This fear is not inspired by perfect charity and consequently cannot be regarded as timor filialis. It is akin to the fear that characterizes the servant, and is therefore termed timor simpliciter servilis. Note, however, that the object of this fear is not punishment as such, but God, in so far as He punishes, and is by His very nature compelled to punish, sin. Contrition inspired by such motives, either severally or combined, is called imperfect contrition or attrition. c) The third and lowest stage of sorrow for sin is that inspired merely by the hope of reward or the fear of punishment. The love that underlies this species of contrition is a naked self-love, or mere egoism. Theologians pertinently call it amor mercenaries. The sinner who feels this mercenary sorrow for his sins, thinks only of himself and 7 V. supra, Sect i, Art i. 8 V. supra, pp. 135 *Q.

wishes to be saved by God’s grace because there is no other way. Were it possible, he would just as lief be saved without God. He has no other aim and object than his own gratification. If there is any real hope in his selfish heart, it is little more than a rude sensual longing for the pleasures of Heaven, similar to that which leads the Turk to people his imaginary paradise with beautiful women. The fear which corresponds to such a selfish love cannot be a true fear of God ; it is merely a fear of being punished by Him. Theologians call this fear timor serviliter servilis, and compare it to the dread a dog feels when he sees the whip in his master’s hand.9 A sorrow based on such an ignoble motive cannot properly be called attrition and involves no true conversion or change of heart. Hence this species of sorrow is not a means of regaining grace, but rather a new sin, because it excludes God and makes man his own last end and purpose. 3. In What Attrition Proper Consists. — It is plain from what we have said that attrition proper can be found only in the second stage described above under No. 2. Its negative characteristics are: (1) absence of perfect charity; (2) absence of a desire to seek reward merely for reward’s sake; (3) absence of both the timor filialis and the timor serviliter servilis. Its positive characteristics are a true love and fear of God, though these need not always be formally present in the soul. ©Otwtld, D%0 dogma*. Lfhro von den hi. Sakramenten der kath. Kircht, Vol. II, p. 93.

a) The love of God that is essential for attrition need not be a love of friendship (amor amicitiae). That imperfect love called amor concupiscentiae, which culminates in the theological hope of eternal happiness, suffices. b) The fear of God involved in attrition, on the other hand, must be superior to the canine timor serviliter servilis. It may be described as a timor simpliciter servilis which fears nothing so much as to be eternally separated from God and thereby forever unhappy. The penitent who has this fear may have an eye to the turpitude of sin, but he is repelled by it not so much out of consideration of the infinite lovableness of God, as by such inferior motives as the violation of the moral order, the disfigurement of the soul, etc., which sin involves. Sorrow for sin inspired by fear is called by Billuart attritio formidolosa. It occupies an important place in dogmatic theology because around it revolves the famous question what kind of sorrow is required for true conversion and the valid reception of the Sacrament of Penance.10 Hence it is necessary to inquire how the timor simpliciter servilis, which is sufficient for attrition, differs from the slavish fear called timor serviliter servilis.11 These two kinds of fear differ in four essential particulars: (1) They are based upon different judgments of the intellect, the former regarding hell merely as an evil, while the latter considers it the greatest of all evils and therefore dreads it more than sin itself ; (2) They stand in a different relation to punishment, the former dreading punishment from a motive of ordi10 V. infra, Art. 2. bard simply terms timor servilis, in 11 What later theologians call ft- contradistinction to timor initialise mor serviliter servilis Peter Lorn*

nate and therefore moral self-love, while the latter is inspired by inordinate egoism, which sets its own welfare above God; (3) They are inspired by different kinds of self-love, the former standing in (at least potential) relation to God, while the latter absolutely excludes God and rests in the Ego as its finis simpliciter ultimas; (4) The timor simpliciter servilis is capable of developing into a higher form, while the timor serviliter servilis is utterly and hopelessly slavish. IMPERFECT CONTRITION SUFFICIENT FOR THE VALIDITY OF If, as we have shown,1 perfect contrition is not necessary for the validity of Penance, Penance requires a species of contrition which does not justify the penitent outside of the Sacrament. In other words, imperfect contrition or attrition is necessary and sufficient for the validity of Penance. No one has ever doubted that attrition is sufficient for the validity of Penance when it is directly and formally inspired by imperfect charity or theological hope. For these two motives, severally and in conjunction, exclude the will to sin and inspire a salutary horror of offending God, and consequently produce a true change of heart. The case is different when attrition is inspired solely by the fear of hell (metus gehennae). Lutherans and Jansenists have joined in denouncing this motive as unworthy and contemptible. They declare that attrition inspired by fear is not a true and profitable sorrow but

Article 2: The Theological Sufficiency of Attrition

PENANCE I Supra, Sect 1, Art. 3.

makes a man a hypocrite and a greater sinner (Luther), keeping his hand from committing, but not deterring his heart from loving, sin (Quesnel). In opposition to this heretical teaching the Catholic Church insists: (i) that attrition inspired by the fear of hell is a good and salutary sentiment, and (2) that it suffices for the valid recpption of Penance. Thesis I: Attrition inspired by the fear of hell is a good and salutary sentiment. This proposition is de fide. Proof. Luther asserted that a man who is sorry for his sins merely because he fears hell, is a hypocrite and a greater sinner than he was before, and that “the more penitents are agitated by the feap of punishment and the pain of loss, the more they sin and are affected by their sins, which they are forced against their will to hate.”2 The younger Jansenius declared that fear of eternal punishment, being a product of “inordinate selflove,” cannot effect conversion.3 Quesnel taught that “fear restrains only the hand, while the heart remains addicted to sin, so long as it is not moved by the love of justice.* 4 This false teaching was formally adopted by the Jansenists assembled 2Serm. de PoeniU, 2: * Haec De Gratia Christi, l V. contritio lex metu gehennae] facit 4 Prop. 61: “Timor nonnisi mahypocritam, imo tnagis peccaforem. num cohibet, cor autem tamdiu pec… Imo quo tnagis timore poenae et cato addicitur, quamdiu ab amort dolore damni sic conteruntur, eo ma- iustitiae non ducitur. (Denzingergis peccant et aMciuntur suis pec- Bannwart, n. 141 1). catis, quae coguntur, non autem vofont odisu* CONTRITION 159 in council at Pistoia. The Fathers of Trent solemnly rejected the error by defining : “As to that imperfect contrition which is called attrition, because it is commonly conceived either from the consideration of the turpitude of sin or from the fear of hell and punishment, [the holy Synod] declares that if, with the hope of pardon, it exclude the wish to sin, it not only does not make a man a hypocrite and a greater sinner, but is even a gift of God and an impulse of the Holy Ghost/’ 5 The disjunctive phrase ” either from the consideration of the turpitude of sin or from the fear of hell and punishment,” shows that, according to the mind of the Tridentine Fathers, either kind of attrition, that inspired by the fear of hell and punishment as well as that based upon a consideration of the turpitude of sin, may be “a gift of God and an impulse of the Holy Ghost.” This truth appears still more clearly from the Council’s fifth canon on the Sacrament of Penance : ” If anyone saith that the contrition … whereby one thinks over his years … by pondering on the grievousness, the multitude, the vileness of his sins [or] the loss of eternal blessedness and the eternal damnation which he has incurred, … is not a true and profitable sorrow, … let him be anathema.” 6 5 Sess. XIV, cap. 4: ” Illam vero peccatorem, verum etiam donum Dei contritionem imperfectam, quae at- esse et Spiritus Sancti impulsum,” tritio dicitur, qubniam vel ex turpi- (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 898). tudinis peccati consideration vel ex 6 Sess. XIV, can. 5 : ” Si quis gehennae et poenarum metu com- dixerit, earn contritionem, … qud muniter concipitur, si voluntatem pec- quis recogitat annos suos … pondecandi excludat cum spe veniae, de- rondo [vel] peccatorum suorum graclarat is. Synodus] non solum non vitatem, multitudinem, foeditafacere hominem hypocritam et magis tern, [vel] amissionem aeternae

i6o THE THREE ACTS OF THE PENITENT Hence it is an article of faith that imperfect contrition, inspired by the fear of hell, is ” a true and profitable sorrow,” ” a gift of God,” and consequently by no means hypocrisy and an additional sin.7 a) Sacred Scripture frequently appeals to the fear of God and His just retribution in order to deter men from sin. Thus Moses tells the Israelites: “God is come to prove you, and that the dread (terror) of him might be in you, and you should not sin/’ 8 The Royal Psalmist prays : “Pierce thou my flesh with thy fear : for I am afraid of thy judgments.” 9 Our Divine Redeemer, far from banishing the motive of fear from the New Testament, employs it as a me^ns of converting the wicked. “It is expedient for thee,” he says, “that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body go into hell.” 10 And on another occasion : “Fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul ; but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.” 11 These appeals show that the fear of hell and other punishments is essentially good and wholesome. b) This conclusion is amply confirmed by Trabeatitudinis et aeternae damnationis incursum, … non esse verum et utilem dolorem …, anathema sit.” (DenzingerBannwart, n. 915). T Against Quesnel see DenzingerBannwart, n. 141 1 sq. ; against the Jansenists of Pistoia, ibid., n. 1525. 8 Ex. XX, 20. 9Ps. CXVIII, 120; cfr. Is. XXXIII, 14; Ecclus. I, 27 sq.; II. 19 sqq. lOMatth. V, 30. 11 Matth. X, 28; cfr. Luke III, 7; XIII, 3; John V, 14. dition. “When you withdraw from confession,” says e. g. Tertullian, “think of hell, which penance has extinguished for you, and imagine first the magnitude of the punishment, that you may not doubt as to the remedy which you have received.”12 St. Chrysostom says: “What is worse than hell ? But nothing is more profitable than the fear thereof. For the fear of hell obtains for us the crown of Heaven.13 … If fear were not a good thing, Christ would not have delivered numerous and lengthy discourses on the future punishment and torments.* 14 St. Augustine, in particular, was a herald, as of divine love, so likewise of the fear of God. This fear, he says in his homilies on the Psalms, *is not yet chaste. … He fears punishments. Whatever good he does, he does out of fear, moved not by fear of losing good, but by fear of suffering evil. He does not fear to lose the affection of the most beautiful Spouse, but he fears to be cast into hell. This fear is good and useful.” 15 c) The Tridentine phrase “ex gehennae et 12 De Poenit., c. 12: *Si de ex- 15 In Ps., 127, n. 8: * I He timor omologesi retractas, gehennam in nondum castus , . . poenas timet, corde considera, quam tibi exomolo- Timore facit, quidquid boni facit, non gesis extinguit, et poenae prius timore amittendi bonum Mud, sed magnitudinem imaginare, ut de reme- timore patiendi illud malum, Non dU adeptione non dubites.” timet, ne perdat amplexus pulcherri13 0 7&p rijs yeipprjs

poenarum metu”1* raises the question whether the fear of purely temporal punishments (poenae temporales), such as purgatory, famine, and war, — is sufficient to inspire a wholesome supernatural attrition. Theoretically, it seems this question can be answered in the affirmative, as there are many pious Christians who have a great dread of purgatory. Moreover, the example of the Ninivites, quoted by the Tridentine Council, indicates that the fear with which these godless people were inspired by the impending destruction of their city, was a wholesome sentiment which eventually brought about their conversion. Suarez says: “If [temporal punishments] be regarded as inflicted by God, and as indications of His wrath and, in a way, the beginning of His just retribution, unless we repent, they may, in this respect, move [us] to supernatural attrition, which is easily reduced to that which originates in the fear of hell.” 17 De Lugo expresses himself in a similar strain.18 Vasquez, on the other hand,19 teaches that attrition must be inspired by “an thesis 29. — Many other Patristic inchoant dwinum supplicium, nisi texts on the subject in Alb. a Bui- emendemur, sub ea rations possunt sano, Theol. Dogmat. Special,, ed. movers ad supernaturalem attriGottfr. a Graun, Vol. Ill, pp. 70 sq., tionem, qu& optims reducitur ad ilInnsbruck 1896. lam, quae est ex metu gehennae.* 16 Sess. XIV, cap. 4. 18 De Poenit,, disp. 5, sect. 9, n. 17 De Poenit,, disp. 5, sect 2, n. 137 sq. 15: * Si considerantur {poenae tern- l» Comment, in S. Theol., Ill, qu. porales] ut inflictae a Deo et ut no- 92, art 2, dub. 3. bis indicant iram eius et quodammodo

eternal motive,” which can be supplied only by a consideration of the everlasting torments of hell. In view of this dissentient teaching it is not advisable in practice, especially for the priest sitting in the tribunal of Penance, to be satisfied with an attrition inspired by the fear of purely temporal punishments. A sinner who has no higher motive than that, may possibly be actuated merely by a timor serviliter servilis and may regret the loss he has suffered or fears he will suffer in his body more than the injury inflicted on his soul by sin. Needless to say, penitents should be exhorted to base their sorrow on the highest possible motive, and to strive to attain to a perfect contrition, instead of resting content with the absolute minimum of attrition demanded for the validity of the Sacrament.20 Thesis II: Attrition inspired by the mere fear of hell is sufficient for the validity of the Sacrament of Penance. Proof. The term “fear” {timor, metus) here is not synonymous with timor serviliter servilis,21 but means that fear which St. Augustine, in a passage already quoted, calls eetimor nondum 20 On the exemplary practice of the in the Innsbruck Zeitschrift far kath. Middle Ages see N. Paulus, ” Die Theologie, 1904, Pp. 68a sqq. Reue t» den deutschen SterbebUch- 21 V. supra, Art. x, Nos. a and lein des ausgehenden Mittelalters,” 3. castus” and which modern theologians designate as timor simpliciter senrilis.22 It is also taken for granted, as a matter of course, that the attrition inspired by the fear of hell “excludes the wish to sin ” and is accompanied by ” the hope of pardon,” 28 both of these factors being, according to the Tridentine Council, an indispensable condition for the validity of absolution. In speaking of attrition inspired by a mere fear of hell, we wish to reject the contention of some theologians that attrition, in order to be sufficient for valid absolution, must be supplemented by a separate and distinct act of ” initial charity.” Though the Tridentine Council does not expressly inculcate our thesis, it can be cogently deduced from the wording of its Caput IV, on Contrition and Attrition, and hence quite a number of modern theologians, (despite the opposition of a few so-called Contritionists), treat it as a ” theological conclusion.” a) The first argument for our thesis may be briefly formulated as follows: Speaking of attrition in general, and attrition based on the fear of hell in particular, the Council of Trent says: “Although this [attrition] cannot of itself, without the Sacrament of Penance, conduct the sinner to justification, yet it disposes him to obtain the grace of God in the Sacrament of Penance.” 24 22 V. supra, Thesis I. ad iustiUcationem perducere pecca23 Cone. Trid., Sess. XIV, cap. 4. torem nequeat, tauten eutn ad Dei 24 Sess. XIV, cap. 4: * Quatnvis gratiam in sacramento poenitentiae sine sacramento poenitentiae per se impetrandam disponit.*

We maintain that disponit here is equivalent to sitfiicit. This can be proved as follows : The Council says that attrition inspired by the fear of hell disposes the sinner to receive the Sacrament of Penance. A person may be disposed to receive a thing either remotely or proximately. The Council cannot have meant that attrition disposes the sinner for Penance merely in a remote manner. Consequently, the disposition of which it speaks must be proximate. Proof of the minor : The Council cannot have meant that attrition disposes the sinner for Penance merely in a remote manner. For it had already declared it to be a remote disposition for Penance when, a little farther up in the text, it inculcated the wholesomeness of attrition in, these words : ” As to that imperfect contrition, which is called attrition, because it is commonly conceived either from the consideration of the turpitude of sin or from the fear of hell and of punishment, [the holy Synod] declares that … it is even a gift of God and an impulse of the Holy Ghost, who does not indeed as yet dwell in the penitent, but only moves him, whereby assisted, the penitent prepares a way for himself unto justice.” 25 It cannot reasonably be assumed that the Council meant to repeat itself in the sentence immediately following. Moreover, the opposition expressed by the grammatical antithesis of quamvis — tamen, between justification effected without the Sacrament and justification effected in and through the Sacrament, would .be meaning25 Sess. XIV, cap. 4 : ” Illam Synodus] … donum Dei esse et vero contritionem imperfectam, quae Spiritus sancti impulsum, non adhuc attritio dicitur, quoniam vel ex tur- quidetn inhabitantis, sed tantum pitudinis peccati consideration vel moventis) quo poenitens adiutus viam ex gehennae et poenarum tnetu com- sibi ad iustitiam parat,” tnuniter concipitur … declarat [S.

less if attrition in conjunction with the Sacrament of Penance did not actually produce an effect which attrition without the Sacrament cannot produce. Consequently, attrition in conjunction with the Sacrament of Penance effects justification ; in other words, attrition inspired by the fear of hell disposes the soul proximately for the valid reception of Penance. Again: the Tridentine Fathers oppose contrition to attrition by saying that the former, as a dispositio proximo,, effects justification immediately without the Sacrament,26 whereas the latter, being merely a dispositio remota, cannot produce this effect outside of and anterior to the reception of the Sacrament. Consequently, attrition obtains its sin-forgiving effect only within the Sacrament of Penance, and in connection with the Sacrament this effect is certain. To express the same idea somewhat differently : Attrition, while not, like contrition, sufficient for justification, is sufficient for the validity of Penance. To these three arguments may be added a fourth. According to the Tridentine teaching, true sorrow for sin, no matter whether it be perfect or imperfect, constitutes the quasi-matter of the Sacrament of Penance.27 Now, attrition inspired by the fear of hell is a true sorrow.28 Consequently, attrition may constitute the quasi-matter of Penance. For the validity of the Sacrament, therefore, all that is still wanting is the sacramental form, which consists in the absolution. Consequently, attrition is a proximate and sufficient disposition for the valid reception of the Sacrament. That this was the meaning of the Tridentine Council is evident from the concluding words of its chapter on Contrition and Attrition: 26 V. supra, Sect i, Art a. 28 V. supra, Thesis I, pp. 158 sqq. 27 V, supra, pp. 76 sq.

” Falsely, therefore, do some calumniate Catholic writers, as if they had maintained that the Sacrament of Penance confers grace without any good motion on the part of those who receive it: a thing which the Church of God never thought or taught.”29 This sentence contains a defense of the theological doctrine that the ” attritio ex metu gehennae” is a “good motion,” a “gift of God,” and ” an impulse of the Holy Ghost.” The Council means to say that the writers who teach this doctrine demand just such an attrition for the valid reception of Penance, and consequently do not assert, as they are falsely accused of doing, that the Sacrament of Penance confers the grace of justification ” without any good motion on the part of those who receive it.” Pallavicini relates80 that the Tridentine Fathers substituted ” disponit ” for ” suMcit ” in the text of the decree as originally drawn. u Dispomt” is a more general term than ” sufEcit,” and its substitution for the latter merely shows that the Council, in view of the controversies then raging among Catholic theologians, did not wish to give a formal definition. This assumption is confirmed by the absence of a corresponding passage in the canons on the Sacrament of Penance.81 b) The second argument for our thesis is based upon the authority of the many Tridentine and post-Tridentine theologians who appeal to the 29 Sess. XIV, cap. 4: ” Quamob- 81 That the Council, though not rem falso qui dam calumniantur formally defining the doctrine, catholicos scriptores, quasi trady mediately taught that attrition based derint sacramentum poenitentiae on mere fear of hell is sufficient for absque bono tnotu suscipientium the validity of Penance, is shown by gratiam conferre, quod nunquam the careful analysis of its decree Bcclesia Dei docttit nec sensit.” made by Palmieri, De Poenit., thes. ZoHistoria Cone, Trident,, XII, 30. Cfr. also Tepe, Inst. Theohg., 10, aj. Vol. IV, pp. 443 iqq.

i68 • THE THREE ACTS OF THE PENITENT XlVth Session of the Council in confirmation of their teaching that attrition inspired by a mere fear of hell is sufficient for the validity of Penance. a) Andreas de Vega, who took a prominent part in the preliminary discussion of the dogma of justification at Trent,82 says in his defense of that decree, published at Venice in 1 548 : ” Absolution may effect justification, i. e. if one goes to confession without such a sorrow [a sorrow based on charity] or merely with a sorrow based on hell or other evils to be avoided… .* 88 Antony of Cordova, who also participated in the deliberations, expresses himself in a similar manner. * One who has such attrition/’ he says, ” goes profitably to confession and is justified by virtue of the Sacrament, for thus must be understood the Tridentine decree when, towards the end, it says in express words that the aforesaid attrition disposes [the sinner] for the reception of grace in the Sacrament, and not outside of it.”84 The same view is held by the great Jesuit theologians Suarez, Vasquez, Gregory of Valentia, and De Lugo, by all post-Tridentine Scotists without exception, by the majority of Thomists, and, in fine, by nearly all moral theologians, including St. Alphonsus de’ Liguori. 82 On De Vega see the Catholic confitetur et virtute sacnamenti Encyclopedia, Vol. XV, p. 320. iustificatur ; nam non potest decre33 De lustific, XIII, c. 24: turn Tridentinum aliter intellegi. ” Absolutio potest primo iustificare, quum in ultimis verbis expresse vid. quum quis sine tali dolore lex dicat, quod in sacramento, et non caritate] vel cum solo dolore de extra, ilia attritio ad gratiam peccatis proper gehennam vel alia obtinendam disponit.” — For addimala evitanda … ad confessionem tional testimonies of the same kind accedit/* * see Palmieri, De Poenit., pp. 327 34 Quaest. Theol., I, qu. 2, opin. sqq. 3: ”… talis attritus it fructuose

p) How was this view, so generally held since the Council, regarded by the theologians of the pre-Tridentine epoch? Concina asserts88 that the doctrine of the sufficiency of ” attrition without charity ” originated simultaneously with Probabilism in 1577, at Salamanca. Berti 86 claims that ” Attritionism ” was unknown before the Council of Trent. Both are mistaken. Morinus87 has demonstrated that the notion, nay the very term attritio, occurs in Scholastic literature as early as 1230, and may probably be traced to Alanus ab Insulis, who died in the year 1200.88 ” Attritionism ” pure and simple was taught by no less an authority than St, Thomas Aquinas (+ 1274), who says in his commentary on the Liber Sententiarum of Peter Lombard: “That a man may prepare himself for the reception of grace in Baptism, there is required as a preliminary condition faith, — not, however, charity, because the preceding disposition suffices, though he have no contrition.” 89 According to the testimony of Dominicus Soto (+ 1560), the majority of Thomist theologians concluded from this dictum of their master that, ” if a man may approach Baptism with the consciousness of mortal sin, i. e. with attrition, knowing himself to be without contrition, he may in like manner receive the Sacrament of Penance without contrition.” 40 This teaching was endorsed by 85 De InsuMcientia Attritionis Servilis, c 4. zeDiscipi. Theo!., Vol. VII, L 34, c. 5. 8T Opusc. de Contrit. et AttrU., c. 1. 88Cfr. Rutten, Studien Bur mitttlalterlichen Busslehre, pp. 15 sq., Munster 1902. 89 Comment, in Sent., IV, dist. 6, qu. 1, art 3: “Ad hoc quod homo praeparet st ad gratiam in baptismo percipiendam, praeexigitut fides, sed non caritas, quia su/Hcit dispositio praecedens, etsi non sit contritus.* 40 Comment, in Sent., IV, dist. 18, qu. x, art. 3: … quod sicut S. Thomas dixit posse quempiam accedere cum conscientia peccati mortalis ad baptismum, set!, cum attritione, cognoscens se non esse contritum, possit pariter [accedere] it ad poinitentiam,” 170 THE THREE ACTS OF THE PENITENT Duns Scotus (+ 1308) and his school, and hence it may be truly said that, with the exception of a small minority,41 Attritionism was the common teaching of the medieval Scholastics. It was precisely this belief in the efficacy of attrition that Luther cast up to the Catholics of the sixteenth century and denounced as ” hypocrisy ” and ” an additional sin.” 42 I. Attritionism. — Attritionism is the theory which holds that a sorrow for sins that is based on no other motive than the fear of hell is good and salutary, and sufficient for the valid reception of the Sacrament of Penance. a) Attritionism excludes from the concept of imperfect contrition not only perfect charity, but also the socalled caritas initialis, i. e. that inchoate love of God which forms the initial stage of perfect charity and, in a measure, partakes of its essence. In other words, the Attritionists teach that pure attrition, without any admixture of charity, nay even without that imperfect love of God known as amor concupiscentiae, suffices for the validity of absolution. The chief representatives of the Attritionist school, however, do not share the extreme 41 V. supra, pp. 146 sq. cialis, Vol. II, pp. 134 sqq., Munich 42 For a defense of Scotus and xooi. — On the teaching of St the Franciscan school of theologians Thomas cfr. M. Schultes, O.P., Dtr against the false accusations raised hi. Thomas fiber das VerMltnis von by Harnack, DieckhofF, E. Bratke, Reue und Bussakrament, Paderand others, see P. Minges, O.F.M., bora 1907. Compendium Thiol. DogmaU Sp$

Article 2: The Theological Sufficiency of Attrition

ATTRITIONISM VS. CONTRITIONISM

ATTRITIONISM vs. CONTRITIONISM 171 view of Melchior Cano, who may be regarded as their leader, that the validity of the Sacrament requires no more than an attritio existimata. This kind of attrition evidently does not exclude the will to sin, and therefore cannot enter as quasi-matter into the Sacrament of Penance. Of course, this is not tantamount to saying that a sinner who approaches the tribunal of Penance in good faith with a merely presumptive attrition, necessarily commits a sacrilege. b) The Attritionists hold that one may receive absolution without making a formal act of (either perfect or imperfect) charity; but they are far from asserting that virtual charity is not necessary for the validity of the Sacrament. Tournely, Antoine, Oswald, De Augustinis, and a few other theologians who otherwise belong to the Attritionist school, postulate an express act of imperfect charity (amor concupiscentiae s. amor spei) for the validity of Penance. But, as Tepe shows,1 the spes veniae demanded by the Tridentine Council may be present without a formal act of charity. All Attritionists agree that genuine attrition is psychologically impossible without the amor initialis. Liberius a Jesu 2 enumerates no less than seventeen reasons why attrition inspired by a mere fear of hell must virtually include the ” beginning of charity The three principal of these reasons are: (1) Attrition must inspire hatred of sin as an offense committed against God, and hence forms the natural preamble to formal love, as Holy Scripture teaches: “The fear of God is the beginning of his love.” 8 (2) Genuine attrition must 1 Inst. Theol, Vol. IV, pp. 450 2 De Poenit, disp. 3» art. x. sqq., Paris 1896. 8 Ecclus. XXV, 16: “Timor Dei

be accompanied by a firm purpose of amendment, i. e. a resolution to avoid sin and keep the commandments. Not the least among these commandments is the love of God,4 and consequently the penitent who has attrition virtually has the votum caritatis, and together with it, the amor initiate. (3) According to the Tridentine teaching,5 attrition must be accompanied by “hope of forgiveness” (spes venial), which in turn virtually includes the desire of being reconciled to God. St. Thomas says : ” By the very fact that we hope that good will accrue to us through some one, we are moved towards him as to our own good, and thus begin to lovte him.” e 2. Contritionism. — There is an exaggerated form of Contritionism, condemned by the Church, which demands perfect contrition as an indispensable requisite for the validity of absolution.7 The so-called moderate or orthodox form of Contritionism, on the other hand, holds that attrition, while good and wholesome,8 is insufficient for the valid reception of the Sacrament unless accompanied by an act of “initial charity” (cantas initiate) . The former being no longer a free opinion since the initium dilectionis eius.* — Cfr. St art. 7: Ex hoc quod per aliquem Thomas, Summa Theol., 2 a aae, qu. speramus nobis posse provenire 19, art 8, ad 2: “Timor, qui est bona, movemur in ipsum sicut in initium dilectionis, est timor \sim bonum nostrum; et sic incipimus pliciter] servilis, qui introducit ipsum amare.” — Cir. Scheebencaritatem, sicut seta introducit Atzberger, Dogmatik, IV, 3, 697 lignum.*’ sqq., Freiburg 1903. 4 Cfr. Deut VI, Si Mark XII, 30. 7 V. supra, Sect 1, Art 3. sSess. XIV, cap. 4. 8 V. Supra, Sect 2, Art 2, € Summa Theol., xa aae, qu. 40, Thesis I, pp. 158 sqq.

ATTRITIONISM vs. CONTRITIONISM 173 Tridentine Council, we mean the latter when we speak of ” Contritionism ” within the Church. The “amor initialis” of the orthodox Contritionists is a rather mysterious thing, and the writers of this school ,are by no means a unit in defining it. They agree on only one point, viz.: that, unlike perfect charity, the amor initxalis does not by itself effect justification. As to its true nature, there are three principal theories. a) Cardinal Pallavicini9 distinguishes a twofold caritas: the amor Dei propter se et super omnia, i. e. perfect charity which justifies by itself and outside of the Sacrament,10 and the amor Dei propter se, but not super omnia, by which the penitent loves God in Himself and for His sake, without, however, preferring Him absolutely to all else. The latter, Pallavicini assures us, is the caritas initialis which must impregnate attrition in order to make it sufficient for the valid reception of sacramental absolution. b) A second group of theologians, headed by Christian Lupus,11 divides contrition into justifying and non- justifying, according to the degree of intensity of the charity by which it is inspired. Both kinds of charity are a genuine amor Dei propter se et super omnia, but they differ in this, that justifying charity, because of its intensity (caritas intensa), justifies immediately and before the reception of the Sacrament, whereas non- justifying charity, because of its weakness (caritas remissa, debilis, initialis), does not of itself effect forgiveness of mortal sin.12 This non- justifying charity Lupus and his followers compare to a fertilizing germ, which attrition communicates to the soul 9De P.oenit., c. 12. 12 On this untenable position see 10 V, supra, Sect 1, Art 2. supra Sect. 1, Art. 2, No. 3, pp. 11 De Contrit. et Attrit., Louvain 142 sqq.

.174 THE THREE ACTS OF THE PENITENT of the penitent, thereby enabling him to receive the Sacrament validly. c) A third group of authors (Billuart, von Schazler, Glossner, etc.) 13 draw an essential distinction between what they call one-sided charity and mutual charity. Each is a true love of God for His own sake and above all else; both are dictated by a pure amor benevolentiae, not by a mere selfish amor concupiscentiae ; — but while the former remains a mere amor benevolentiae on the part of man, the latter elicits a corresponding sentiment on the part of God, and thus develops into a mutual love of friendship {amor amicitiae). As long as the one-sided love of benevolence is mixed with fear, it lacks the power of justifying outside of the Sacrament; but when fear is overcome, the love of friendship enters and justifies the soul. The attrition necessary for valid absolution is that which is inspired not merely by the fear of hell but likewise by the one-sided love of God defined above. Hence, in order to be sufficient for valid absolution, attrition must be based on something more than fear, namely, on a one-sided love of God. 3. The Official Teaching of the Church. — By his famous decree of May 5, 1667, Pope Alexander VII commanded all parties to this controversy to avoid mutual recrimination and reserved the final decision to the Holy See. As no decision has ever been rendered, the controversy between Attritionists and Contritionists remains unsettled. The papal decree referred to is of 13 Billuart, De Poenit., diss. 4, Mtinster i860; Glossner, Dogmatik, art. 7; von Schazler, Die Wirk- Vol. II, pp. 404 sqq., Ratisbon samkeit der Sakramente, § 26. 1874.

ATTRITIONISM vs. CONTRITIONISM 175 great importance in forming a just opinion of the opposing theories, and hence we will reproduce its principal passages. The Pontiff says he has learned with distress that ” some Scholastics were disputing among themselves with excessive harshness and scandal to the faithful ” on the question ” whether that sort of attrition which is inspired by the fear of hell, excluding the will to sin with the hope of forgiveness, in order to obtain grace in the Sacrament of Penance, requires [in addition to such fear] some act of the love of God; some assert that it does, while others deny this proposition, and each party censures the opinion of the other.” 14 The Pope, ” by virtue of sacred obedience and under pain of the severest ecclesiastical penalties,” warns all who “in future will write or teach or preach on the subject of attrition, not to presume to brand with any mark of theological censure or otherwise to condemn either of the two opinions, — that which denies the necessity of some sort of love of God in thfe attrition conceived through fear of hell, which to-day [1667] seems the one more generally held by Scholastic theologians-, or that asserting the necessity of the said love, until something shall have been defined in this matter by the Holy See.” 15 14 ” An ilia attritio, quae concipitur ex metu gehennae, excludes voluntatem peccandi cum spe veniae, ad itnpetrandam gratiam in sacramento poenitentiae requirat insuper aliquem actum dilectionis Dei, asserentibus quibusdam, negantibus aliis et invicem adversam sententiam censurantibus.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1146). 15 . . ut si deinceps de materia attritionis perfecta scribent … vel docebunt vel praedicabunt, … non audeant alicuius theologicae censurae alteriusve iniuriae aut contumeliae nota taxare alterutram sententiam sive negantem necessitate m aliqualis dilectionis Dei in praefata attritione ex metu gehennae conceptd, quae hodie inter Scholasticos communior videtur, sive asserentem dictae dilectionis necessitatem, donee ab hoc Sancta Sede fuerit aliquid hac in re deHnitum.” (Ibid.) 176 THE THREE ACTS OF THE PENITENT There are two points of special interest to be noted in this decree. The first is the pontifical statement that Attritionism at that time had more defenders than Contritionism. The same is true to-day. The second is the vagueness of the term aliqualis dilectio Dei. We have no means of ascertaining whether Alexander VII employed this term to denote an actus caritatis or an actus atnoris concupiscentiae. It is safe to assume, however, that the Pope had in mind an act of genuine charity in its initial stage, — the amor initialis of the Schoolmen. Is it permissible, in view of this papal decree, to hold that attrition, even if entirely devoid of charity, is sufficient for absolution? Yes, because the Pope expressly says that it may be denied that ” some kind of act of charity ” is necessary for absolution. But anyone who would defend this proposition would lay himself open to the charge of playing with a bauble. It is impossible to be sorry for one’s sins without having at the same time love as well as fear, though, of course, this love may lie latent in the soul. In other words, charity is always virtually contained in the fear which inspires attrition.16 4. Contritionism Refuted. — The Contritionists explain the teaching of the Tridentine Council in their own way. a) Pallavicini relates 17 that the Council’s definition on the subject was originally couched in these terms: ” But that contrition which the theologians call attrition, … suffices for the reception of this Sacrament, and is a gift of God and an impulse of the Holy Ghost, … by the aid of which the penitent, since he can hardly be with16 V. supra, Sect 2, Art i, Nos. 17 Hist. Cone. Trid., XIII, xo. 2 and 3.

ATTRITIONISM vs. CONTRITIONISM 177 out some movement of love towards God, prepares for himself the way to justice… 18 One of the bishops present objected to this wording on the ground that it was false to say that the attrition which is inspired by fear can hardly be conceived without some impulse of love, and that theologians differed widely as to the sufficiency of such an attrition for the validity of Penance. This led to the elimination of the phrases which we have italicized and the substitution of the wording finally adopted 19 for that first proposed. According to the Contritionists this incident shows that the Fathers of Trent, with one solitary exception, were at heart Contritionists and that Sess. XIV, cap. 4, must be interpreted accordingly. In reality the argument proves nothing. Supposing the Fathers of the Council, by employing the phrase * dUectionis in Deum motu,* had intended to signify something more than the (perfect or imperfect) charity virtually included in the spes veniae (which is not denied by the Attritionists) ; — what would be gained for the Contritionist cause? Nothing, because the true meaning of an ecclesiastical decision must be gathered from its text and context and not from conciliary proceedings buried for centuries in the Vatican archives. Now the definition of the Council, as contained in the official Acta et Decreta, is utterly silent as to the alleged necessity of the actus caritatis initialis, and consequently this necessity is not dogmatically defined. On the contrary, the text and context have been so remodeled that the validity of attrition 18 Illam veto confritionem, quam que at, viam sibi ad iustitiam munit, theologi attritionem vocant, … etc. Cfr. Aug. Theiner, Acta suMcere ad sacratnenti huius con- Genuina Concil. Trid., Vol. I, p. stitutionem ac donum Dei esse et 584, Zagrab in Croatia, 1874. Spiritus Sancti impulsum, … quo 19 Sess. XIV, cap. 4 (Dcnzingcrpoenitens adiutus, quutn sine aliquo Bannwart, n. 898). dilectionis in Deum motu esse vix

can be deduced from the change as a conclusion from the premises of a syllogism.20 b) The main argument of the Contritionists is based on Sess. VI, caput 6, of the Tridentine decrees, where, it is alleged, the caritas initiaiis is demanded as a condition for the validity for Baptism. The passage runs as follows: . . they begin to love Him [God] as the fountain of all justice, and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit : by that penitence which must be performed before Baptism.” 21 From this text the Contritionists argue: Penance requires for its validity at least as much preparation as Baptism; consequently the caritas initiaiis must be a conditio sine qua non of Penance also. This argument can be controverted by intrinsic as well as extrinsic evidence. The extrinsic reasons against it may be briefly stated as follows : (i) If the Contritionists were right, those Fathers and theologians who, at a later session of the Council of Trent (the XlVth), asked to have the phrase * dilectionis in Deum tnotu * re-inserted, could readily have gained their point by referring to Session VI, caput 6, where, according to the Contritionist contention, the controversy was already decided in their favor. That they failed to do this shows that the Contritionist claim is groundless. Nor can it be assumed that the Council itself altered the original wording of this important decree so radically as to favor a theory which its authors had rejected. These two facts prove that Sessio VI, caput 6, cannot be interpreted in favor of the Contritionist theory. 20 V. supra, Art. 2, Thesis 2. odium aliquod et detestationem, hoc 21 Sess. VI, cap. 6: Deum … est per earn poenitentiam, quam tamquam omnis iustUiae font em ante baptismum agi oportet. diligere incipiunt, ac propterea (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 798.) moventur adversus peccata per

ATTRITIONISM vs. CONTRITIONISM 179 (2) Two of the most famous theologians who attended the Sixth Session of the Tridentine Council were Dominicus Soto and Melchior Cano. Both in their subsequent writings not only adhered to Attritionism, but expressly cited Sessio VI, caput 6, in support of their contention, while nearly all the other sixteenth-century divines who wrote after the Sixth Session of the Council22 understood the Tridentine passage as treating of justification without the Sacrament. (3) The first writer who tried to prove the necessity of the caritas initialis (in the form of contritio existimcttd) for the validity of Penance from the sixth chapter of Session VI of the Tridentine Council, was Martin Alphonsus Vivaldus. He admits, however, in his Candelabrum Aureum Ecclesiae Sanctae Dei, published towards the close of the sixteenth century, that his interpretation is novel.28 The intrinsic reasons militating against the Contritionist interpretation of the Tridentine decree are well stated by Suarez and other later theologians. They may be summarized thus : Sessio VI, caput 6, of the decrees of the Council, while it treats of the dispositions required for justification in adults, does not deal exclusively with sacramental but likewise with extra-sacramental justification, which latter is effected by means of perfect contrition {contritio caritate perfecta). In an enumeration of all the conditions required for justification in this general sense, perfect charity had necessarily to be mentioned.24 22 The exceptions were: Peter controversy cfr. Palmieri, De PoeSoto (+ 1563), Navarrus (-f- 1586), nit., pp. 333 sqq. and Vasquez. t 24 Other Contritionist arguments 28 ” Unde per dictum cap. 6 patet from Scripture and Tradition, esclare iniellectus noster ad cap. 4, pecially from the writings of St Sess. XIV, licet nullus sic explicet,” Augustine and the teaching of — For fuller information on this Aquinas, are refuted by Palmieri, De Poenit, thes. 31. i8o THE THREE ACTS OF THE PENITENT Readings : — Chr. Lupus, De Contritione et Attritione, Louvain 1666. — Morinus, De Contritione et Attritione, in that writer’s Opera Posthuma, Paris 1703. — Le Drou, De Contritione et Attritione, Rome 1707. — Benaglio, Delf Attrisione, Milan 1846. — J. Deharbe, S. J^.Die vollkotnmene Liebe Gottes in ihrem Gegensatz sur unvollkommenen Reue und in ihrer Anwendung auf die vollkotnmene und unvollkotnmene Reue nach der Lehre des hi. Thomas, Ratisbon 1856.— J. J. Surrin, S. J., fjber die Liebe su Gott, Mayence 1883. — E. J. Hanna, art ” Contrition ” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, pp. 337-340; Idem, art *‘Attrition/’ ibid., Vol. II, pp. 65 sq.— H. Denifle, O.P., Luther und Luthertum in der ersten Entwicklung, Vol. I, pp. 229 sqq., Vol. H, pp. 454, S77> 618 sq., Mayence 1906. The student may also read with profit St Francis de Sales’ Treatise on the Love of God, and H. C. Semple, S.J., Heaven Open to Souls, New York 1916.