THE PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT
16. Necessity and Nature of the Purpose of Amendment.
According to the decision of the Council of Trent, as we have seen
above, the resolution to amend as well as contrition is required for the
valid reception of the Sacrament. With a true sorrow for sin is always
conjoined the resolution to avoid it, so that we may say with regard to
past sins sorrow means grief and horror, with regard to the future it
means the resolution to amend. For instance, a man who hates the sin
he has committed, because it is sin and in so far as it is sin, _i.e._
because it is an offense against God and the greatest misfortune which
can befall a mortal, naturally extends that sorrow to everything which
involves sin, and so to the sins of the future, since they offer the same
grounds for hatred as the rest.
Now amendment is effected by the deliberate intention never to sin again
for the future. A distinction is drawn between the express or formal
resolve (_propositum explicitum seu formale_), as when, for example, a
man thinks upon his future life and resolves to sin no more, and the
implicit resolve contained in the sorrow (_propositum implicitum seu
virtuale_); the latter is present when a man, without thinking upon his
future life, repents of his sin in such wise that, if asked whether he
intends for the future to avoid sin, he would most certainly answer in
the affirmative.
It is a disputed point among theologians whether for the validity of
confession an express (formal) resolve is necessary or one included in
the act of contrition (a virtual resolve) is sufficient. Some teach
absolutely (very few, however) that an express resolve is necessary, and
appeal to the Council of Trent as requiring this condition, since, after
defining the act of contrition, it adds the words: _Cum proposito non
peccandi de cætero_.[188]
This argument is successfully invalidated by Cardinal Lugo,[189] who, in
addition, brings convincing testimony that the very opposite conclusion
may be drawn from the teaching of the Council. Since, moreover, as
Ballerini shows in his notes on Gury’s text, only a very few theologians
adopt that view, it can hardly lay any claim to probability.[190]
Other theologians teach absolutely that an express purpose of amendment
is not necessary if the contrition proceed from a universal motive;[191]
an implicit resolution is sufficient, and Lugo calls this opinion
_communis inter recentiores_. Indeed most of the theologians endorse it.
Ballerini cites seventy-three by name, with the passages in which they
express their views.[192] It is also founded on solid intrinsic grounds,
for, according to the doctrine of the Council (_loco citato_), attrition
which excludes the desire of sinning is sufficient for the valid
reception of the Sacrament; but, as we have seen, attrition excludes the
desire of sinning, even when there is no formal purpose of amendment, for
it detaches the heart of man from sin, and not only from past sin but
from all sin.[193]
Finally, there are theologians who distinguish and say: If a penitent
advert to the future, he must make a formal resolution to amend; if,
however, as in the case of the dying, no thought of the future occurs to
him, a formal resolution is not necessary; for it is hardly possible that
a penitent who is really sorry for his sins and thinks upon the future
should fail to make an express and formal resolve to amend. Yet this may
very well happen, as Ballerini observes, to pious people, especially to
such as are careful to avoid even slight deliberate venial sins, and are
accustomed to make acts of sorrow for defects and to start afresh on the
right way; for in them the resolution to avoid sin is not made just for
the time when they prepare for confession, but it is rather an enduring
habit of mind. Hence it is not matter of surprise that they should not
think of renewing and confirming their resolution. Suarez makes this
clear when, in speaking of perfect contrition, he asks whether an act of
perfect love suffices for justification, or whether also an act of sorrow
for sin be necessary; he replies that _per se_ both are required, but
that _per accidens_ the act of perfect love suffices, for whoever makes
an act of perfect love is undoubtedly restored to grace; but that if a
man be conscious of sin, he is in duty bound to reëstablish his right
relation to God and to make a formal and explicit act of displeasure and
hatred with regard to the sin; to neglect this duty would prove that he
had no real love. In a similar way the sinner who mourns for his past
sins is naturally prompted to make a resolution of avoiding sin; hence
the voluntary neglect of the purpose of amendment renders the act of
contrition very suspicious.[194]
After exposing the three views which have divided theologians on this
point, St. Alphonsus concludes: The last two views are certainly the more
probable; but since the first has also a certain probability, it must
in practice be followed _ante factum_. He holds that a penitent would
be obliged to repeat his confession if he had confessed in good faith
without an express purpose of amendment, though with real contrition
such as would include a virtual purpose; his argument being that, since
the first opinion is sufficiently probable, a penitent who had certainly
incurred mortal sin is bound to avow the same in a confession that was
certainly and not merely probably valid.[195] Now, as we have shown
above, the first opinion can hardly lay claim to any probability, though
the holy Doctor concedes it as such mainly because he was misled by
Lacroix into believing that he had distinguished authorities on his side.
Besides, St. Alphonsus teaches in another part of his Moral Theology
(l. c. n. 505) that the penitent should not be obliged to repeat his
confession unless there be a moral certainty of its invalidity—a doctrine
quite in accordance with the _sententia communis_ and with excellent
reason maintained by Lacroix, Gobat, etc., in opposition to Antoine, one
of the most conspicuous rigorists of his time.
In the case under consideration it may be decided with moral certainty
that a confession made with a virtual purpose of amendment is rather
valid than invalid, especially since, according to St. Alphonsus himself,
the champions of all these opinions unite in declaring that a confession
made without an express resolution of amendment need not be repeated,
for they would certainly have decided for the repetition if they had
thought such a confession invalid. Hence theologians deny _communissima
sententia_ that a formal purpose of amendment (if the contrition is based
on a universal motive) is necessary _necessitate sacramenti_; they admit
that confessions are valid without the express purpose of amendment.
Add to this that St. Alphonsus in his _Homo Apostolicus_ taught that
confessions made with only a virtual purpose of amendment need not be
repeated.[196]
We conclude with the following principles:—
1. In order to receive the Sacrament validly and to share in its
essential effects, a virtual or implicit purpose of amendment is
sufficient if the sorrow proceed from a universal motive.
2. If confession has been made without a formal and express purpose of
amendment, there is no obligation to repeat the confession as though it
had been invalid.
3. The faithful should be taught and urged to make a formal resolution of
amendment in the course of their preparation for confession.
The reason of this last prescription is not so much to be found in any
doubt with regard to confessions made without the express purpose of
amendment, but to secure a more abundant fruit from the Sacrament. We
shall certainly with the grace of God make more earnest endeavors to
avoid sin and to reform if we expressly, deliberately, and with all our
heart resolve to avoid sin. Indeed, as Lehmkuhl justly observes, apart
from the grace of the Sacrament and the instruction and advice of our
confessor, the frequent reception of this Sacrament serves to secure us
against relapse, for our wills need a frequent stimulus to remain firm in
the hatred of sin. Not infrequently one cause of our relapses is a weak
purpose of amendment.[197]
17. Properties of the Purpose of Amendment.
The purpose of amendment must have the three following properties: it
must be absolute or firm, efficacious, and universal. We shall consider
these properties in detail.
The purpose of amendment must, first of all, be _firm_, answering to the
contrition which detests sin above all other evils; so that a man under
no circumstances, neither through fear of any evil or love of any good
will think of swerving from his resolve. Thus the purpose of amendment
is not a velleity, not a mere wish or a vague desire; it must be an
absolute, fixed determination never to sin again; otherwise the penitent
would not really detest sin nor really and thoroughly turn to God.
The resolution must then be so fixed that the penitent is resolved
to overcome all the difficulties which may oppose its execution. The
confessor will prudently refrain from placing before the penitent all
the difficulties which will have to be faced in keeping the resolution
or from revealing to the penitent all his obligations, if the latter be
_bona fide_ ignorant of them; “for,” says Suarez, “he might expose the
penitent to the obvious danger of making no resolution, but rather of
sinning again.” It is enough, continues the great theologian, if the
confessor pictures to the penitent in general terms the hatefulness of
sin, the goodness of God, the danger of eternal damnation, etc., and that
the penitent in consequence of the exhortation forms a general resolution
never to fall again into mortal sin.[198] The advice which Cardinal
Cajetan gives to confessors is in much the same strain: They should not,
he says, lead their penitents into temptation by their excessive and
imprudent zeal in asking whether they are resolved to avoid sin even at
the risk of suffering the greatest misfortunes, loss of goods, of health,
or even of life itself; for questions of this kind would prove a snare to
many penitents. His office should be rather to persuade them to love God
above all things, and in consequence of this love to repent of their sins
and avoid them for the future. In this way he will inflame the hearts of
his penitents, without leading them into danger.[199]
The celebrated Lugo reminds us of the weakness of the human heart;
the confessor is to take this weakness into account in dealing with
the penitent, and not put before him singly and explicitly enormous
difficulties which he should be ready to overcome rather than commit
sin. In another place, treating of penitents given to ambition and
sensuality, who have renounced their sins in confession though without
great sorrow, but, conquered by the strength of their passion which
they have only resisted feebly, have relapsed easily when occasion
offered, he says: “Indeed we do not dare to represent clearly in detail
the temptations or occasions of sinning which may occur, in order that
the penitent may make his resolutions on each point, for there is good
reason to fear that he will fail to retract his former sins even _in
confuso_.”[200]
It is then sufficient _per se_ that the penitent resolve _in confuso_ to
sin no more; a resolution of this kind, however, may be easily defeated
by the contemplation of a peculiar difficulty. For this reason the
penitent should renew frequently and earnestly his resolution never to
sin again; if he do this and also pray, there is reason to hope that he
will be victorious in the actual moment of trial. Men of strong will and
steadfast heart may put before themselves and contemplate with their eyes
open the difficulties in the way of avoiding sin and reforming their
lives, and such conduct is helpful in the spiritual struggle, unless the
subject be one in which the heart is vehemently carried away or where
victory consists in flight. To conjure up difficulties and to review
temptations which might disturb weak minds and lead them into danger[201]
serves no good purpose and is not to be recommended.
From the foregoing it is abundantly evident:—
1. That the Jansenists and rigorists are wrong in maintaining that
relapse into sin is a sign of a want of purpose. The resolution depends
on the present frame of mind which, however strong it is, may easily
waver. “The fact of a man sinning again does not prevent his former
sorrow from having been real; as a man may be now seated who has been
running, so a man may fall into sin who has been truly repentant; the
nature of a former act is not changed by a subsequent act.”[202] And the
Rituale Romanum[203] directs, as of great utility, to advise those who
easily relapse into sin to confess often, once a month, or on certain
feasts, and also to communicate; it presumes that such people in spite
of their relapses have made good confessions; otherwise the penitent
would be obliged to repeat his confessions as being invalid every time
that he relapsed, which would certainly be opposed to the practice and
universal belief of the faithful. If, however, a penitent relapse without
any effort to overcome himself, it may be taken as a sign that he had no
fixed determination, or there is ground for a suspicion, at least, of its
absence; any one who is really determined to avoid sin will not easily
forget his purpose; he will resist for some time at least, and will fall
less easily and less often.[204]
2. Even if a penitent is conscious of his own weakness and knows that he
will relapse in spite of his resolution and in spite of earnest effort,
he cannot be considered as giving undoubted signs of weakness of purpose.
It is only the rigorists who demand a firm conviction of not falling
again.
If, however, a penitent is so afraid that he will fall again, or so
convinced that he will repeat his sin as to despair of reforming, he
cannot be absolved; not only does he fail in resolution—there is a fair
suspicion at least that he has no fixed determination—but he distrusts
God’s grace which is ever at hand, and, as experience proves, is always
efficacious in helping men of good will to overcome difficulties and
obstacles. Before giving such a penitent absolution he must be taught
the fatal error of his ways, moved to sorrow for his despair, for such
despair is sinful, and exhorted to great confidence in God’s grace. This
is the doctrine of St. Alphonsus,[205] in which, as he himself confesses,
he follows Busenbaum,[206] Concina, and Lacroix.[207]
If, finally, the penitent has misgivings from his previous experience
of relapses, but not so strong as to deprive him of all confidence, he
is not to be classed at once as indisposed; the confessor must persuade
him to make a firm resolution against sin and encourage him to have
confidence in God’s grace. If he succeed in arousing hope in him, and the
penitent promise to have recourse to prayer in temptation, it is better
to give absolution at once than to put it off. This class of penitents
should be encouraged to confess frequently, for there is reason to hope
that they have a fixed determination to improve; there is no presumption
for the opposite view, since a strong resolution to avoid sin is quite
compatible with the fear of a possible relapse.[208]
Still less would it be a sign of want of the requisite dispositions if
the confessor were persuaded that the penitent could hardly be saved
from a relapse; this conclusion may be drawn with moral certainty, or,
at least, on strong presumption, from the ordinary occurrences of life;
hence the necessary disposition on the part of the penitent can always be
secured.
In practice it is not of infrequent occurrence that a penitent, otherwise
of good will, alarmed by the difficulties of some undertaking, declares
that he cannot avoid a certain sin, or refuses to make a promise for fear
of breaking his word, or says he cannot trust himself. This happens in
the case of those who are given to some evil habit, as, for instance,
taking the name of God in vain, swearing, flying into a rage, etc. Such
a penitent must not only be encouraged to trust to the help of divine
grace, but be taught that all required of him is to have at the present
moment (_hic et nunc_) the determination not to relapse, that he should
not look too far ahead but make his resolution day by day. The confessor
must take particular care that the penitent understands that that only is
demanded of him which he freely acknowledges to be within his power. This
end is obtained by suggesting methods to the penitent to be used when he
is free from temptation as well as when he is attacked, and by impressing
upon him that all demanded of him is to guard against committing sins
knowingly and with full advertence.[209]
The resolution must, moreover, be _efficacious_, _i.e._ the penitent must
be ready not only to avoid sin, but also to take the necessary means for
avoiding it, especially by avoiding the proximate occasions; for whoever
effectually desires some end must, of necessity, as far as lies in him,
remove all impediments to it, and employ all the means which will lead
to it. Hence theologians teach that the resolution must be _efficax
affectu_; in the case, however, where it is not _executione efficax_,
_i.e._ where the penitent fails to accomplish his purpose, it is not
reasonable to conclude at once that a real and sufficient resolve was
absent, though some presumption against the fixity of the purpose may be
entertained. What has been said with respect to the steadfastness of
the purpose of amendment may be applied to its efficaciousness, seeing
that the two subjects are so intimately connected. Though it is undoubted
that for valid confession the purpose of amendment must be fixed and
efficacious, yet we are not to understand thereby that a man may never
fail in his resolution. It is quite certain that men are so fickle that
they will fall away frequently from determined and fixed resolutions,
as we see, for instance, in the case of St. Peter, who, as we know, was
sincerely pledged not to betray his Lord, and, yet, denied Him soon
after, at the mere word of a maid servant.
The purpose of amendment, then, is fixed and efficacious when a man
is determined really to carry out what he has proposed, though he
may afterwards fail through fear of an obstacle or in the stress of
temptation; this happens often enough even in the case of those who
are aiming at Christian perfection. Hence, for valid reception of the
Sacrament, the purpose of amendment is sufficiently efficacious if it
keep a man from sin during the time that his resolution lasts.[210]
In order to be reasonably free from misgivings with regard to his
resolution, the penitent should be morally certain that he desires to
avoid sin at any cost for the rest of his life, despite all grounds he
may have for believing that his resolution may become weak in course of
time.
Finally, the resolution must be _universal_, _i.e._ it must extend to
all mortal sins at least, not only those which have been committed, but
also those which are possible. Here lies the distinction between the
universality of the contrition and that of the purpose of amendment;
for while the sorrow is universal which includes all the sins that have
been committed, the resolution, in order to be valid, must embrace all
possible mortal sins. If there remained but a single mortal sin which the
penitent was unwilling to shun, his resolution would be vain and useless
even with regard to his other sins, because it could not be founded on
a universal motive, such as hatred of sin considered in the light of an
offense against God. A resolution which is based on this motive extends
to all mortal sins without reserve, because they are all an offense
against God; and if but one be excepted, such a motive could not have
influenced the purpose of amendment, which in consequence cannot be real
and genuine.[211]
18. The Purpose of Amendment with regard to Venial Sin.
The purpose of amendment, as we have said, must extend at least to
all mortal sins. With regard to venial sins it must be constant and
efficacious, but not necessarily universal; for, since venial sin is
consistent with the friendship and grace of God in the soul, one is not
obliged to resolve on avoiding all of them: indeed no one _sine speciali
privilegio gratiæ_ can avoid all venial sins, and no one is called upon
to resolve to accomplish the impossible; still there is an obligation to
resolve to avoid them as much as possible, or at least to diminish their
number. The following points will present the matter in detail:—
1. It is sufficient with respect to any venial sin to make an act of
contrition and a purpose of amendment, even though these acts do not
extend to all lighter venial sins of the same species; for the greater
the sin the greater is the offense against God and the punishment due
to it; and a man may well shrink from displeasing God beyond a certain
point, though below that point he may be careless.
2. It is sufficient to make an act of sorrow and purpose of amendment
with regard to some particular species of sin, or some vice, or some sins
opposed to a particular virtue, especially if the penitent keeps before
his mind those particular sins which have been committed with greater
malice and deliberation.[212]
3. With much more reason may it be considered sufficient to make acts of
sorrow and purpose of amendment for all perfectly deliberate venial sins
on account of their greater guilt; such a universal sorrow must, however,
include a fixed and efficacious resolution of amendment. With respect
to venial sins which are not quite deliberate, the resolution to take
more pains to avoid them is a sufficient purpose of amendment. In order
that such a universal resolve may be of avail, a particular species of
sin should be singled out and made the special object of contrition and
amendment.
4. Moreover, it is the general teaching of moralists that it is enough to
make acts of sorrow and amendment with regard to the frequency of venial
sin if the penitent really resolve to reduce the number; it is necessary
here, however, to guard against a very lax practice. Though such doctrine
is possible in theory and such a purpose of amendment may be defended
as sufficient for the Sacrament, yet it is not free from risk; hence
St. Alphonsus in his book _Praxis Confessarii_ distinctly states that a
resolution founded only on the great number of venial sins without any
sorrow for any particular venial sin is not sufficient for receiving the
Sacrament, while in his Moral Theology he grants that such a resolution
is permissible, and founds it on the doctrine of St. Thomas; for it is
impossible, he says, to be sorry on account of the number of the venial
sins without repenting at least of those that have been last incurred and
which have raised the number.[213]
The above doctrine may be useful to the priest in appeasing scruples
about past confessions, if the penitent is not in the habit of falling
into grave sin, and fears that he may have confessed without sufficient
sorrow and purpose of amendment. _Ante factum_, _i.e._ before confession
or, at least, before absolution is given, this doctrine should be
confined _in praxi_ to the sorrow and amendment of sins not quite
deliberate and incurred through carelessness; for the guilt of such sins
lies chiefly in the carelessness by which a man fails to watch himself
and his evil inclinations, so far as possible to repress and overcome
them.
It is impossible for a man to preserve himself entirely from all these
sins, hence it is enough to be resolved to use great vigilance in
reducing the number.
Moreover, it may be observed that a man who keeps his conscience so pure
that he has only indeliberate venial sins to confess will easily make a
sufficient act of sorrow for past sins; but if a man always falls into
the same sin, it is a fairly clear sign that he has no true contrition
and no firm purpose of amendment; hence it is a useful practice to make
more careful acts of sorrow and amendment with regard to some particular
sin, or to add some grave sin of the past life with respect to which real
sorrow and a firm purpose of amendment can be aroused.