Whether contrition, confession, and satisfaction are parts of repentance.
Whether contrition, confession, and satisfaction are parts of repentance.
§ 57. Finally, let Bellarmine’s fifth proposition come forth. Here he clearly and affirmatively sets forth his opinion concerning the parts of repentance: “There are three parts of repentance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction.” He tries to prove this with divine Writ, the testimonies of the fathers, and the congruity of reason.
We respond. (1) We concede that contrition is a part of repentance, but what Bellarmine means by the word “contrition” and what our churches mean by it will be explained a little later [§§ 62–96].
(2) Bellarmine uses “contrition” to mean not the inner grief over sins committed but rather the exterior signs of contrition, for he explains his intent in this way (about the middle of ch. 17): “We contend that contrition is part of the sacrament not as it dwells in the heart but as it is revealed through signs.” But now, he concedes (ch. 11, resp. ad 3) that these signs can sometimes be absent from this sacrament, for he writes: “There are many visible signs in the sacrament of penance, as when you see the priest laying on his hands or the penitent humbling himself at the knees of the priest and pouring forth tears. But since these are seen so often in such a way that the sacrament of penance can still exist even without them, I respond briefly that both confession and absolution are visible signs instituted by God.” In making these points, Bellarmine contradicts both the decrees of the Council of Trent and himself. For if confession without other signs of contrition is enough on the penitent’s part for the integrity of the sacrament, why, then, is contrition—that is, the outward signs of contrition—required in addition to confession for the essential parts of repentance?
(3) Bellarmine tries to prove these parts of repentance from that fact that in statements of Scripture and in the examples of those who repent truly, these three [parts] are mentioned. Yet he has written in his first proposition of this chapter: “It is one thing for something to be required for conversion; it is another for it to be a part or act of penance.” Therefore it is not enough to show that signs of contrition and confession exist in true repentance unless it is also demonstrated that they were present as essential and necessary parts.
(4) For this reason Durandus (Sent., 4, dist. 16, q. 1) admits that these three—contrition, confession, and satisfaction—are necessarily present in repentance. Yet he still argues that confession alone is the material part of this sacrament, that contrition is the preparation and satisfaction is the fruit of repentance. To do this, he uses two specific arguments: that “contrition is revealed by no other sign than the actual confession of sins,” and “the sacrament of penance does not necessarily demand satisfaction in reality but merely in intention.”
Bellarmine responds to this coldly (De poenit., 1, ch. 17): “It is required that a person confess his sins with grief and loathing,” since this grief can be shown through the very words of confession while not showing itself through other outward signs. He also says: “The sacrament of penance can exist without satisfaction, but it is then crippled and imperfect. Thus satisfaction is not an essential but an integral part of this sacrament.” Yet the question here concerns especially the essential parts. Every external symbol of a sacrament is an essential part of it. But on the basis of Bellarmine’s hypothesis, these three actions of the penitent (contrition, confession, and satisfaction) are the external symbol of this sacrament on the part of the penitent while the word of absolution is the symbol on the part of the priest. Therefore these three actions will have to be the essential parts of the sacrament.
(5) Bellarmine tries to prove those three parts on the basis of the Old Testament, even though he denies that the sacrament of penance was instituted in the Old Testament. How can he reconcile these things? He says: “It must be noted that the three parts of penance are not merely required in that order for the sacrament but also are and have been necessary outside the sacrament in a way peculiar to them, for two reasons. First, the confession of all sins which is made to the priest is not required outside of the sacrament, nor is the satisfaction enjoined by the priest so required. Instead, a general confession made to God and satisfaction voluntarily assumed through laborious works are enough,” etc. Bellarmine once again contradicts himself with these statements. For if in the Old Testament neither the confession of all sins made to the priest nor the satisfaction enjoined by the priest were required, the consequence is that the passages and examples of Scripture which he draws from the Old Testament to establish confession and satisfaction are not to the point. For it is not any confession but the full enumeration of all sins made to the priest, nor is it any satisfaction but the satisfaction enjoined by the priest, which are numbered among the parts of this sacrament. But in a legitimate proof “the major term, minor term, and the middle term must be drawn from the same genus,” as the Philosopher demonstrates (Analyt., 1, ch. 7).