Note 196 — Chapter II · THE PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT
Richard F. (Richard Frederick) Clarke translation
The Turin edition of his Moral Theology defends the doctrine held in the present work, and shows that the holy Doctor was always expending labor on the text of the Moral Theology and correcting it up to the end of his life. Aertnys, moreover, declares (appealing to S. Alph. Theol. Moral. Lib. I. n. 53, Lib. III. n. 700, and Lib. VI. n. 505) that there is no obligation of repeating the confession; and Marcus (Institut. Moral. Alphons. P. III. Tract. V. Diss. II. cp. I. art. II. n. 1680) adopts Scavini’s view: In praxi no one need be disturbed in this matter, since it can hardly happen that a really contrite penitent will omit the formal purpose of amendment. Müller (l. c. § 117) requires for the validity of the confession a formal resolution to amend, and maintains that confessions made without the formal resolution are to be repeated.