第56章

We must distinguish.If the evil is not regarded as sent by the hand of God, such a sorrow does not suffice; but if the evil is viewed as sent by God, as, in fact, all evil, says Diana, except sin, comes from him, that kind of sorrow is sufficient.' Our Father Lamy holds the same doctrine.""You surprise me, father; for I see nothing in all that attrition of which you speak but what is natural; and in this way a sinner may render himself worthy of absolution without supernatural grace at all.Now everybody knows that this is a heresy condemned by the Council." "I should have thought with you," he replied; "and yet it seems this must not be the case, for the fathers of our College of Clermont have maintained (in their Theses of the 23rd May and 6th June 1644) 'that attrition may be holy and sufficient for the sacrament, although it may not be supernatural'; and (in that of August 1643) 'that attrition, though merely natural, is sufficient for the sacrament, provided it is honest.' I do not see what more could be said on the subject, unless we choose to subjoin an inference, which may be easily drawn from these principles, namely, that contrition, so far from being necessary to the sacrament, is rather prejudicial to it, inasmuch as, by washing away sins of itself, it would leave nothing for the sacrament to do at all.That is, indeed, exactly what the celebrated Jesuit Father Valencia remarks.(Book iv, disp.7, q.8, p.4.) 'Contrition,' says he, 'is by no means necessary in order to obtain the principal benefit of the sacrament;on the contrary, it is rather an obstacle in the way of it- imo obstat potius quominus effectus sequatur.' Nobody could well desire more to be said in commendation of attrition." "I believe that, father, said I; "but you must allow me to tell you my opinion, and to show you to what a dreadful length this doctrine leads.When you say that 'attrition, induced by the mere dread of punishment,' is sufficient, with the sacrament, to justify sinners, does it not follow that a person may always expiate his sins in this way, and thus be saved without ever having loved God all his lifetime?

Would your fathers venture to hold that?" "I perceive," replied the monk, "from the strain of your remarks, that you need some information on the doctrine of our fathers regarding the love of God.This is the last feature of their morality, and the most important of all.You must have learned something of it from the passages about contrition which I have quoted to you.But here are others still more definite on the point of love to God- Don't interrupt me, now; for it is of importance to notice the connection.

Attend to Escobar, who reports the different opinions of our authors, in his Practice of the Love of God according to our Society.The question is: 'When is one obliged to have an actual affection for God?' Suarez says it is enough if one loves Him before being articulo mortis- at the point of death- without determining the exact time.Vasquez, that it is sufficient even at the very point of death.Others, when one has received baptism.

Others, again, when one is bound to exercise contrition.And others, on festival days.But our father, Castro Palao, combats all these opinions, and with good reason- merito.Hurtado de Mendoza insists that we are obliged to love God once a year; and that we ought to regard it as a great favour that we are not bound to do it oftener.But our Father Coninck thinks that we are bound to it only once in three or four years; Henriquez, once in five years; and Filiutius says that it is probable that we are not strictly bound to it even once in five years.How often, then, do you ask? Why, he refers it to the judgement of the judicious." I took no notice of all this badinage, in which the ingenuity of man seems to be sporting, in the height of insolence, with the love of God."But," pursued the monk, "our Father Antony Sirmond surpasses all on this point, in his admirable book, The Defence of Virtue, where, as he tells the reader, 'he speaks French in France,' as follows: 'St.Thomas says that we are obliged to love God as soon as we come to the use of reason: that is rather too soon! Scotus says every Sunday; pray, for what reason? Others say when we are sorely tempted: yes, if there be no other way of escaping the temptation.Scotus says when we have received a benefit from God: good, in the way of thanking Him for it.Others say at death: rather late! As little do I think it binding at the reception of any sacrament: attrition in such cases is quite enough, along with confession, if convenient.Suarez says that it is binding at some time or another; but at what time?- he leaves you to judge of that for yourself- he does not know; and what that doctor did not know I know not who should know.' In short, he concludes that we are not strictly bound to more than to keep the other commandments, without any affection for God, and without giving Him our hearts, provided that we do not hate Him.

To prove this is the sole object of his second treatise.You will find it in every page; more especially where he says: 'God, in commanding us to love Him, is satisfied with our obeying Him in his other commandments.