Note 24 — Part I PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT

Cf. S. Th. De Malo, Q. 7, art. 12 ad 4, and Summa Theol. III. Q. 87, art. 1. St. Thomas demands for the forgiveness of mortal sin a perfectior pœnitentia, that is, that a man actually detest his mortal sins so far as he can; sed non hoc requiritur ad remissionem venialium peccatorum; non tamen sufficit habitualis displicentia quæ habetur per habitum caritatis, vel pœnitentiæ virtutis, quia, sic caritas non compateretur peccatum veniale, quod patet esse falsum.... Hence follows, continues the holy Doctor, that there is required a virtualis displicentia, puta cum aliquis hoc modo fertur secundum affectum in Deum et res divinas, ut, quidquid sibi occurreret, quod eum ab hoc motu retardaret, displiceret ei et doleret, se commississe, etiamsi actu de illo non cogitaret, quod tamen non sufficit ad remissionem peccati mortalis nisi quantum ad peccata oblita post diligentem inquisitionem. III. Q. 87, art. 1. Scavini, l. c. n. 13. There is an apparent opposition, but it is only apparent, between this teaching of St. Thomas and that of Suarez (Disp. II. Sect. 3. n. 8 sq. in Sum. III. Q. 87, art. 2) and other theologians, who hold that venial sins can be forgiven without formal contrition by an act of supreme love of God. For Suarez distinguishes a twofold perfection in this love, an objective secundum extensionem ad venialia peccata, and an intensive ex conatu potentiæ. Only the objective love which extends to venial sin is, according to this learned theologian, able to atone for venial sin, because it implies an aversion of the will from sin in consequence of that love. Hence, it will effect the remission of all venial sins quoad culpam if it extends virtually to all, or of some only, in so far as these are affected by the act of love. This aversion of the will from sin is nothing else than a virtualis displicentia; in other words, contrition.