Note 172 — Chapter I · CONTRITION

Suarez (De Pœnit. Disp. 20, Sect. 6, n. 7) and Lugo (Disp. 14, n. 48) teach clearly that a penitent who confesses (venial) sins for which there is no sorrow, along with others without indicating the known defect of sorrow, would sin venially by mixing up proper and improper matter. Their view, however, is singular and is combated by other theologians. In particular Mazzotta (l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. III. § 2, v. f.) gives the correct solution to the objection that to confess venial sins for which there is no sorrow, is a lie and a nullifying of the Sacrament, because the act of confessing these sins is exercite a declaration of sorrow for them. He replies that, even granting the objection, it is in any case a lie in a matter of less moment, and so at the most a venial sin, whence there can be no nullifying of the Sacrament. He denies also that such confession is a lie, for, in accordance with the feeling and practice of the faithful, the penitent by such confession of venial sins states exercite that he is sorry for some of them and wishes to be absolved; with regard to the rest he reveals them for his greater humiliation and shame, or in order to disclose the state of his soul, just as he may also reveal his evil inclinations and irregular desires, though they are not sins. Even when a penitent is sorry only for the greater sins, and yet says at the end of his confession, “For these and all my other sins I am sorry,” he tells no lie, for these words have no other meaning in their ordinary acceptance than this, that he is sorry for all the sins from which he can and wants to be absolved. It is just the same when a man confesses many venial sins and is sorry only on account of their great number, for he can easily see a peculiar malice in the habit of committing such venial sins, and on that account can more easily excite himself to sorrow for them. Mazzotta, l. c.; Lugo and Suarez, l. c.; Stotz, Trib. Pœnit. Lib. I. Pars II. Q. I. art. 4, n. 20; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 290, 291.