“Whereas most other pious practices, such as alms, fasting, prayer and similar holy and commendable works, are sometimes rejected by God on account of the faults of those who perform them, contrition can never be other than pleasing and acceptable to Him. A contrite and humble heart, O God, exclaims the Prophet, thou wilt not despise.” (Roman Catechism, pt. ii, On Penance)
“Whatever of piety, of holiness, of religion, has been preserved to our times in the Church, through God’s goodness, must be ascribed in great measure to confession.” (Ibid.)
Introduction
As part of my article on the fewness of the saved from last week, I briefly invoked the testimony of various saints against a certain position held by Fr. Francisco Suarez, SJ, on deathbed conversions. While these saints, of course, concede that such a conversion occurs (which itself is witnessed to by scripture in the case of St. Dismas), on the other hand, they deny that such is always the case, teaching that such confessions often lack the proper dispositions required for the validity of confession.
Some friends and others, acting in good faith and with a zeal for souls, informed me of an obvious problem with my treatment of this matter. Many Catholics, upon hearing this, will draw a quite obvious conclusion: if it is possible for deathbed confessions to be invalid due to improper dispositions, then, likewise, it is possible for their confessions to be invalid due to improper dispositions. In light of this, many of the faithful who read this section were troubled by this possibility, and a few quite openly despaired at the thought.
Therefore, in this article, I hope to rectify this situation, lest I, in teaching others, be found guilty of spiritual bloodshed on that great and terrible day of the Lord, when I will be called more stringently to account for every word that has proceeded from my pen. The Catechism of Trent encourages especially teaching on this matter of the necessary elements for the validity of the sacrament of Penance, “to awaken attention, lest they be found culpably negligent in a matter so very important,” because “there is nothing that should be better known to the faithful than the matter of this Sacrament.” (Pt. 2, On Penance)
To those who may be opposed to my decision to write an article on this issue, remember these words of the Roman Catechism. There is nothing that should be better known; yet, how few know it? How many are unaware of the firm purpose of amendment necessary for the validity of this sacrament? How many are unaware of the true character of the contrition necessary for this sacrament? How many are unaware of the necessity of faith and hope in this sacrament? While these are largely unknown, the Roman Catechism says that there is nothing that should be better known. What should I write about? The Filioque? Divine Simplicity? It is better that ignorance reign on these matters among the entirety of the faithful than that these most important and fundamental matters are ignored.
There is nothing better for me to write about and for you to read about than this topic of the necessary matter of the sacrament of penance.
A Protestation
Before we begin, I should make a note on method. First, I follow the clear judgments of the Catholic Church on the matter of the Sacrament of Penance and the requisite conditions for its validity. Second, I follow the merciful teaching of St. Alphonsus, the moral doctor of the Church, who, as many Popes have witnessed, follows that golden mean between the destructive doctrines of rigorism and laxism. Beyond these standards, I will clearly indicate where moralists have not come to a consensus on the matter.
On Penance in General
To many, it may be surprising that Catholic theologians invoke internal dispositions as in any way relevant to the validity of Penance. Certain heretics demanded the state of grace or, at least, membership in the Church and the true faith as necessary for the validity of the sacraments of baptism and orders. It would seem, upon first glance, that the same error is lurking around the corner with this doctrine.
To understand why this is not the case, it must be remembered that, for the validity of a sacrament, there are five requisite conditions: matter, form, subject, minister, and intention. For Penance, unlike a sacrament like Baptism, the matter is not something external (e.g., water), but something internal. The Council of Trent teaches the following on this matter:
“The acts of the penitent himself, to wit, contrition, confession and satisfaction, are as it were the matter of this sacrament. Which acts, 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 sins, are for this reason called the parts of penance.” (Sess. 14, cap. 3)
In the canons of this session, the fourth canon anathematizes those who teach the opposite doctrine:
“If any one denieth, that, for the entire and perfect remission of sins, there are required three acts in the penitent, which are as it were the matter of the sacrament of Penance, to wit, contrition, confession, and satisfaction, which are called the three parts of penance… let him be anathema.” (ibid., can. 4)
The reason why the saints and theologians I quoted in my last article rejected the validity of the majority of deathbed confessions is that they found, by experience, that the majority of such cases lacked the first of these acts of the penitent, i.e., contrition.
The Council of Trent goes on in the next chapter to explain what the necessary contrition for Penance is, which it says “holds the first place amongst the aforesaid acts of the penitent.” (ibid., cap. 4). It teaches that contrition “is a sorrow of mind, and a detestation for sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning for the future.”
There are three aspects to contrition. First, it is a sorrow of mind. Second, it detests the sins committed. Third, it includes a purpose of not sinning in the future. This is also explained in the following terms: “this contrition contains not only a cessation from sin, and the purpose and the beginning of a new life, but also a hatred of the old… [which] flow[s] from a certain vehement hatred of their past life, and from an exceeding detestation of sins.”
Therefore, for example, if someone came to confession and did not have a purpose of avoiding such sins for the future (called a “firm purpose of amendment”), then his confession would be invalid. Likewise, if someone rejoiced in the sins of his past life rather than detesting them, then his confession would be invalid.
The reason for these acts in particular arises from the doctrine concerning justification taught in Session 6 of Trent, in the chapter on the preparation for justification.
The synod then gives a judgment on a certain problem that arose in reaction to this doctrine. The problem to be solved is quite easy to understand. In order to be justified, we must be in a state of grace, which implies that one possesses charity. Now, in order to have a valid confession, one must have true contrition for one’s sins. Therefore, a dilemma seems to arise; either proper dispositions are necessary, or they are not; if they are necessary, then it would seem that the man going to confession is already justified apart from confession; if they are not necessary, then the entire doctrine is overthrown.
The Council Fathers solve this dilemma by appealing to a distinction between two types of contrition: perfect contrition and imperfect contrition. Perfect contrition is perfected by the possession of the theological virtue of charity. Even in this case, perfect contrition is not apart from the sacrament, since charity implies the will to obey God in all things, including the desire for the sacrament: “the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein.” (ibid.) Yet, it is denied that this perfect contrition, motivated by charity, is actually necessary for the validity of the sacrament; rather, the imperfect contrition (called “attrition”) is sufficient, where the motivation of detesting sin is not the theological virtue of charity, but some lesser motive: “although this attrition cannot of itself, without the sacrament of penance, conduct the sinner to justification, yet does it dispose him to obtain the grace of God in the sacrament of Penance.” (ibid.)
This same doctrine concerning what is necessary for valid absolution is taught by the Roman Catechism with clarity.1
The Roman Catechism then goes on to give explanations of each of these parts.
First, it recalls the definition of Trent that contrition is “a sorrow and detestation for sin committed, with a purpose of sinning no more,” which is “joined with a confidence in the mercy of God and an earnest desire of performing whatever is necessary to the proper reception of the Sacrament.”
Fundamental to this contrition is, first of all, “a hatred of one’s ill-spent life and a desire of atoning for past transgressions.” This does not simply consist in “ceasing to sin, or in resolving to begin, or having actually begun a new life,” as some may suppose. Rather, it is “an intense hatred and a lively detestation of past transgressions.”
It is important to recall that sorrow is not taken here for a sensible feeling, but for an act of the will: “although contrition is defined as sorrow, the faithful are not thence to conclude that this sorrow consists in sensible feeling, for contrition is an act of the will.” Since acts of the will ordinarily overflow into certain affections, such feelings are its natural accompaniment, effect, and sign, but not its essence, and hence not necessary for the validity of confession (St. Alphonsus: “Non requiritur dolor sensibilis; sufficit enim intellectivus”).
The Catechism teaches that there are three chief conditions necessary for true contrition. First, we ought to “detest and deplore all our sins.” If this detestation only applies to some of our sins, then “our repentance is not salutary, but feigned and false.” Second, it ought to include “a desire of confessing and satisfying for our sins.” Third, “the penitent must form a fixed and firm purpose of amendment of life.” This amendment concerns not only the amendment of his own moral character, but also an amendment of the evils of his sins, repairing the injury done to others by his sins. Further, we ought to forgive the injuries done unto us, as Our Lord commands in the Gospels.
This true contrition can be aroused in the faithful by the frequent examination of conscience, not merely considering where he has fallen, but also: “should anyone be conscious of sin, he should immediately accuse himself, humbly solicit pardon from God, and implore time to confess and satisfy for his sins.” Further, above all else, he should “supplicate the aid of divine grace, in order that he may not relapse into those sins which he now penitently deplores.”
This can also be aided by various considerations frequently given in books of prayer and other devotional aids, including the consideration on the “turpitude and baseness” of sin, the evils that are effects of sin, the generosity of God towards us, and the eternal punishment that will be given to those who refuse to be contrite.
This billiant exposition of the Roman Catechism became the seedbed for the teaching of the theologians that contrition must be true (not apprent), real (not a mere speculative judgement), proper (formal displeasure), per se formal (not merely virtual), loving (i.e., includes some love of God, although not necessarily the theological virtue of charity), essentially supernatural, efficacious (an act absolutely repugnant to sin, i.e., the act is against sin as such, even if a man falls into sin contrary to this act), universal (extending to all mortal sins), and supreme (according to its object, i.e., that the intellect affirms that sin is to be hated above all things and, consequently, that the will is ready to suffer all things rather than to sin). This is extensively explained and demonstrated by Doronzo in his De poenitentia, tom. ii, cap. iv, art. 25.
In another article, I will give a more detailed treatment of each of these aspects, but, for the lay reader, the general outline of the Catechism of Trent suffices. Subscribe to receive this article in your inbox when it comes out:
Second, the Catechism brings to mind the second part of Penance. While contrition can suffice for the forgiveness of sins, how many are able to make an act of perfect contrition? Very few.
“Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins. It, therefore, became necessary that the most merciful Lord should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He has done in His admirable wisdom, by giving to His Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”
Therefore, God established the Sacrament so that an imperfect contrition can suffice when we confess and are absolved.
The Catechism defines confession as “a sacramental accusation of one’s sins, made to obtain pardon by virtue of the keys.” It is called an accusation to distinguish it from other ways in which we may recount our sins, since the recounting of our sins is mixed “with a desire, as it were, to avenge them on ourselves.” It is “made to obtain pardon” to distinguish it from forms of judicial accusation where we may confess to establish our guilt, but not to remove it. It is “sacramental” because it is made to a priest possessing the power of jurisdiction to authoritatively absolve our sins.
In order for the confession to be valid, it is required that it be entire, confessing each of the mortal sins that one recalls, with their number and circumstances that aggravate the malice of the act, e.g., it is not sufficient, in a case of adultery, to simply state that one “slept with a woman,” but that one committed adultery, since this aggravates the malice of the act.
What is to be done if he does not recall a mortal sin? If it is through gravely culpable negligence (i.e., if he did not engage in a proportionally diligent examination of conscience), then the confession is invalid.2 If it is not gravely culpable, then it is valid and he must simply state this in his next confession:
“Should the confession seem defective, either because the penitent forgot some grievous sins, or because, although intent on confessing all his sins, he did not examine the recesses of his conscience with sufficient accuracy, he is not bound to repeat his confession. It will be sufficient, when he recollects the sins which he had forgotten, to confess them to a priest on a future occasion. It should be noted, however, that we are not to examine our consciences with careless indifference, or to be so negligent in recalling our sins as to seem as if unwilling to remember them. Should this have been the case, the confession must by all means be made over again.”
Then, the Catechism goes on to give a few other qualities of a good confession: plain, simple, sincere, prudent, modest, brief.
Lastly, the Catechism brings to mind the third part, satisfaction. Satisfaction is the full payment of a debt. Therefore, after absolution, we make acts of satisfaction, imposed by the priest, to satisfy Divine justice for our sins and to repair the offense done by them. Commonly, this is called the “penance.” It is important to note, for validity, that the actual performance of the penance is not necessary for validity, but only, at the time of absolution, that there be a “subjective disposition of the penitent accepting [the penance] in order to fulfill it later.” (STS IVA, On Penance, th. 8)
There are three degrees of satisfaction. First, the highest degree of satisfaction, which is perfect and sufficient, is the propitiation offered by Christ on our behalf in His Passion. Second, there is the canonical satisfaction, which is imposed by the priest for our sins. Third, there are various voluntary satisfactions that are privately done by the faithful.
Satisfaction, as a part of the sacrament, is the second degree of satisfaction. It is joined to a “deliberate and firm purpose carefully to avoid sin for the future,” which is “to cut off all occasions of sin, and to close every avenue against its suggestions.” This satisfaction is instituted in order to pay the temporal punishment due to sin and to remove the scars of vice. The efficacy of this satisfaction is not from itself, but “arises entirely from the merits of the Passion of Christ our Lord.”
The general notion of satisfaction requires two conditions: first, that we be in a state of grace; second, that the work performed be “painful or laborious.” Therefore, there are three kinds of works of satisfaction. First, fasting, which opposes the concupiscence of the flesh. Second, alms, which oppose the concupiscence of the eyes. Third, prayer, which opposes the pride of life.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1447ff) gives the same essential doctrine, quoting both Trent and the Roman Catechism. The same is also taught by St. John Paul II in Reconciliatio et paenitentia, n. 31, and summarized in the Code of Canon Law (can. 987-8).
Laxist and Rigorist Errors
Additionally, the Church has determined a number of details on the nature of this contrition against both the Laxists (under Bl. Innocent XI) and Rigorists (under Alexander VIII).
The Laxists were condemned for teaching that the attrition sufficient for the validity of confession could be something natural rather than the gift of God (“it is probable that natural but honest imperfect sorrow for sins suffices,” DZ 1207), that the sinner is to be absolved who has the habit of sinning with no hope of amendment (“the penitent who has the habit of sinning against the law of God, of nature, or of the Church, even if there appears no hope of amendment, is not to be denied absolution or to be put off, provided he professes orally that he is sorry and proposes amendment,” DZ 1210), and that the sinner is to be absolved who refuses to avoid the proximate occasion of sin (“he can sometimes be absolved, who remains in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and does not wish to omit, but rather directly and professedly seeks or enters into,” DZ 1211).
It is for this reason that the Roman Catechism speaks at length of the duties of confessors towards the various states of penitents, especially the indisposed and unprepared.
The Rigorists were condemned for denying the supernaturality and goodness of the fear of hell (“fear of hell is not supernatural,” “attrition, which is conceived through a fear of hell and punishments, with a love of benevolence for God in Himself, is not a good and supernatural motive,” DZ 1304-5, cf. 1410-12, 1525), and demanding “unmistakable signs of the love of God dominating in the heart of a man” for absolution (DZ 1536).
Is My Contrition Genuine?
These various acts of contrition should be familiar to those who frequent confession. We express sorrow for our offense against God (“I am heartily sorry for having offended thee”). We express the detestation that we have for our sins against God (“I detest all my sins”), along with the motives for such detestation, both the punishments of God to us and the offense it gives from us to God, which is repugnant to His intrinsic excellence. Lastly, we firmly resolve towards God that we will avoid both sin and whatever leads to sin, i.e., the near occasions of sin.
The theology of the Church is clearly manifested in the prayer of the Church. Those who go to confession and truly intend what is said in this prayer have the three aspects of contrition. Those who go to confession and do not truly intend what is said in this prayer do not have the three aspects of contrition and, absent an integral part of confession, confess invalidly.
In light of this doctrine, many, attacked by scruples, question whether they truly intended these internal acts. It must be confessed that it is simply part of the human condition that our certitude about even our own internal acts is often lacking in that more perfect certitude that we have about external things, according to experience and the abundant testimony of scripture. This is recognized by Catholic theologians against the Protestants on the certainty with which we know that we are in the state of grace (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, ST.I-II.Q112.A5). This comparison is commonly made by theologians, “confession does not produce its effect, unless contrition be presupposed; concerning which no man can know whether it be true contrition, even as neither can one know for certain if he has grace” (ST.IIISup.Q10.A5.Rep2)
Yet, while this more perfect certitude is lacking in our understanding of our own internal acts, it would be false to conclude from this that all certitude is lacking, such that we would be bound to always fear that such acts do not exist within us. All that is necessary for the validity of the sacrament is that each of these aspects be firm and genuine.
While some may object that this is not helpful, since the very question at hand is how we can know whether some act is firm and genuine, the answer to this is quite simple. I would ask you to spend time reflecting on the various transgressions you have made against others in your life. You understand quite well when the apology you give to them and the purpose of amending your fault are sufficiently genuine. You also understand that, at times, your apology is not sufficiently genuine and the purpose of resolution is not firm. The alcoholic frequently apologizes for his faults for some temporal gain, without any serious purpose to resolve his problems. The adulterer does the same. For those who cannot imagine that we cannot have insufficient contrition towards God, remember that there are many times in which you know that your contrition is feigned in your relationship with others. For those who cannot imagine that we can have sufficient contrition towards God, remember that there are many times in which you know that your contrition is genuine in your relationship with others. The first destroys despair in the presumptuous, the second destroys presumption in the despairing.
If you genuinely seek contrition, you will find it. The Church has not failed in giving you sufficient instruction on how to arouse this act. As mentioned above, the Catechism of Trent has an entire section discussing this matter.
Remember, above all, that the Church clearly teaches, against the Laxists, that the attrition necessary for valid absolution is not something natural, but is a gift of God. Therefore, it is not something that we can conjure up by our own natural powers, it is something that can only be given to us by God.
While this may seem crushing, it is a great consolation for those who recognize the depths of the Mercy of God and the certainty of His promises. Remember the simplicity of the Gospel: “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” (Matt. 7:11) If you ask earnestly and with humility, know that God has bound Himself by His word to give what you ask in accordance with His will. What could be more pleasing to God than your repentance? Therefore, “Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.” (v. 7)
Remember, if each and every soul that has been damned had asked God for this gift perseveringly and with humility, then they would be saved from the state of mortal sin (ST.II-II.Q83.A15-16). The saints teach that the prayers of those in mortal sin infallibly impetrate the mercy of God (Mortal Sin, Prayer, and the Promises of God).
While you may wonder at this and how this could ever be true when the vast majority of men are damned, I would ask you to look within yourself. How slow are you to pray? How often do you refuse to persevere in prayer, giving up early when you do not see immediate results? Cease to wonder, then, that many are damned.
The same St. Alphonsus who penned the fundamental axiom of the spiritual life (”He who prays is saved. He who prays not is damned!”) was the same St. Alphonsus who recognized that such prayer often escapes the dying (Preparation for Death, con. vi), leading to the damnation of the majority of adult Catholics (ibid., con. xvii).
NOTE: The remainder of this article consists of a consideration of certain disputes between theologians on more particular questions about what constitutes proper contrition for the validity of the sacrament. In keeping with the spirit of the article, and understanding that many will come to read such an article who will be confused by such discussions, I will not make it public.
