130. Jurisdiction at the Article of Death

1. "Lucianus, the parish priest, with the people assembled to hear Mass on a feast day, prepares himself to celebrate. But, when he was already clothed in the sacred vestments, he is informed that Titius, a parishioner dwelling in a village about one hour distant, is near death. What will he do, pressed by these straits? He hesitates in uncertainty, not knowing what counsel is to be taken; for the people have not heard Mass, nor is there time remaining to wait until the parish priest returns, so that he may celebrate it, for midday is already nearer. But soon, he says to himself, I know what I shall do. Excellent thought! Colombinus, a priest of this place, who celebrates as chaplain in the neighboring parish, has already returned. Behold, I shall send him at once to the dying man; but I, remaining here, shall celebrate. He indeed is not approved for confessions; but in danger of death no approval is required. Colombinus, having been asked, agrees, and goes as quickly as possible. Soon he arrives at the house of the dying man; he already begins to ascend the stairs, when the groans, cries, and wailings of women are carried to his ears, among which a sorrowful voice is heard: Now the poor man is breathing forth his spirit! Then the priest cries out in a loud voice: I absolve thee from thy sins, and immediately, hastening to the room of the one lying ill, he sees him already dead.

It is asked: 1.º Whether the parish priest, another priest being lacking who might go to the dying man, could have omitted Mass, or even ought to have done so? - 2.º Whether the parish priest acted well by sending a priest not approved to the sick man? - 3.º Whether the absolution was valid, which Columbinus imparted in these circumstances of affairs? - 4.º Whether the chaplain could even have celebrated Mass in the place of the parish priest, so that the latter might go to the dying man?

R. To the 1st. Affirmatively. Lucianus could and ought to have omitted Mass. The reason is that in a conflict of two precepts which cannot be fulfilled at the same time, the greater precept must be fulfilled. But the greater precept is that he succor the soul of the dying man; for the urgent precept of charity in these circumstances by natural law is greater than the ecclesiastical precept of hearing Mass. Therefore Lucianus could and ought to have omitted Mass.

To the 2nd. The Case is not without grave difficulty, and grave reasons for each opinion, namely affirmative and negative, can be adduced. For probably Lucianus could not send Columbinus to the sick man. The reason is that Columbinus could not absolve the dying man as delegated by the parish priest, as is clear; but neither from the general approval of the Church for the case of death, because there is not lacking an approved priest, namely the parish priest, who is not absolutely impeded. Yet the opposite opinion does not seem to lack a solid foundation. For a most grave reason urges that the parish priest send the chaplain to the dying man; for he can be said to be morally impeded, since he then ought to celebrate, so that a great people may hear Mass. Nor does this seem alien to the intention of the Church. Therefore, the opposing reasons adduced on both sides, resting upon a grave motive, we are in a Case of doubtful jurisdiction. But it is lawful to use doubtful jurisdiction when a grave cause urges, as it is grave in our Case. Therefore the good parish priest is not to be condemned, who in such great straits of affairs sent the chaplain to the dying man.

To the 3rd. Affirmatively. For 1.º it was valid on the part of the minister, because then he was the only priest present, and therefore he certainly enjoyed jurisdiction. 2.º It was valid by reason of the presence of the priest, which was truly moral. 3.º It was valid on the part of the form: I absolve thee from thy sins. 4.º It was valid also probably on the part of the dying man well disposed, inasmuch as he had called for a priest, and, if he heard him approaching, could have given a sign of penance; but this absolution ought to have been imparted conditionally.

To the 4th. Negatively of itself. The reason is that the chaplain is no longer fasting. Moreover, it is not of itself a sufficient reason for celebrating Mass without observing the fast, that the people may hear it. Yet that would be lawful if otherwise scandal, grave tumult, and offense of the people, etc., were to be feared." Thus Fr. Gury 559-562.

In the Response to the 2nd it must first be noted that, the probability of each opinion standing, with regard to the question whether a simple priest can validly absolve when an approved confessor is present, there is no longer properly a question of a case of doubtful jurisdiction, but of probable jurisdiction. Then that grave difficulty which Fr. Gury affirms seems now no longer to be present after the Response of the Holy Office, July 29, 1891, which is of the following tenor: "1.º Whether the absolution is valid which any priest, even one not approved, has imparted at the article of death, when an approved priest could easily have been called or could have been present? 2.º Whether similarly the absolution is valid, granted at the same article of death to a dying man having reserved sins, whether simply or with a censure, by a priest not having jurisdiction in reserved matters, even if a priest having the aforesaid jurisdiction could easily have been called or could have been present? R. to each: Those are not to be disturbed who hold the affirmative opinion." S. O., July 29, 1891; I. M. 773.

In the Response to the 3rd, there is difficulty. For considering the Case as it stands, it is certainly not easy to understand how in reality Columbinus was sufficiently present to the dying man. For he gave absolution when he had begun to ascend the stairs of the house. Columbinus indeed cried out the absolution loudly. But, if the dying man lay in some inner room of the house, if the house was not sufficiently close to the first stairs, moral presence is understood with difficulty. I. M. 748. Wherefore the absolution, in the Case, ought indeed to have been given under condition also on this account.

2. Naborius, struck by a sudden illness and already brought to extremities, asks for a priest. When Marius the chaplain, destitute of all jurisdiction, was passing by, he is called. The beginning of confession having scarcely been made, behold, Lucas the vicar is present, who, Marius withdrawing, receives the confession of the sick man. But soon, hearing a reserved sin, and not enjoying the faculty of absolving from reserved matters, he is not moderately entangled; when, the rumor of Naborius's illness having spread, Urbanus the parish priest also flies there. When he appears, the vicar gives thanks to God and asks the sick man that he be willing to confess to the pastor, his most loving father. He agrees; but when the sick man had opened a Case to which was annexed an excommunication reserved to the bishop, now the parish priest does not know what must be done. Behold, meanwhile there arrives the vicar general, very familiar with Naborius, to whom the pastor would gladly have yielded his place in his stead, if he had dared to do this, or if the penitent had considered it agreeable; but fearing offense to the sick man, he heard him integrally and absolved him. Afterward, however, Naborius recovered and was restored to perfect health.

It is asked: 1.º Whether a priest not approved can hear confession in the Case of death? Whether in the presence of one approved? - 2.º Whether a simple confessor, in the Case of death, can absolve from reserved matters? Whether from censures, and in what way? - 3.º Whether the various confessors acted rightly in the present Case, or what ought to have been done by them? - 4.º Whether Naborius, having recovered health, ought to have repeated the confession?

R. To the 1st. A priest lacking approval can absolve in a Case of necessity, or at the article or danger of death, from the general faculty granted by the Church, lest anyone perish through defect of power in the priest. But according to many, he cannot absolve when another approved priest is present, because in that Case no necessity urges. Yet, if the confession of a dying man has been begun by a simple priest, it can be completed. Lig. 563. But according to others, a simple priest can even absolve a dying man in the presence of an approved confessor, because, in that Case, jurisdiction is attributed to him by the Church simply and without any restriction. This opinion is probable.

To the 2nd. A simple confessor can absolve from reserved cases in danger of death, because the Church, a benign mother, willed that in death there should be no reservation. But he cannot absolve from censures except indirectly, or in such wise that, if the sick man recovers, he is bound to approach another confessor enjoying the faculty of absolving from censures. See Comp. 579.

To the 3rd. 1.º Marius, the first confessor, acted badly by yielding his place to another; for although he was a simple priest, he ought to have pursued the confession begun, as is clear from what has been said; and therefore in the Case he could validly absolve.

2.º Lucas, the vicar, also acted badly by yielding his place to the parish priest. For he ought not to have been restrained from completing the confession because of a reserved sin, since in death there is no reservation.

3.º But what about Urbanus the parish priest? First, he acted badly by carrying through a confession begun by another; but afterward he acted well by not sending the wretched sick man back to the vicar general. For a confession begun, while the danger of death urges, is a sufficient reason that a confessor destitute of the power of absolving from censures absolve from them also, indirectly, even when a superior has supervened.

To the 4th. Naborius, having recovered health, by no means ought to have repeated the confession, but only to make known to the superior, or to the delegate, according to the common opinion, the sin to which the censure was annexed, so that he might be absolved from it directly; or through the parish priest himself to request the faculty, so that the confession could be completed by him." Thus Fr. Gury 555-558.

With regard to the response to the first and third questions, cf. the preceding Case and I. M. 773.

With regard to the response to the second question, it must be noted that sins indeed can be absolved indirectly, but censures by no means. I. M. 669, 800. But as regards censures, these at the article of death, if they are reserved, are absolved by one not having power either absolutely, without any burden of later appearing, if the sick man recovers, before the superior, or with such a burden, as will soon be explained below. I. M. 799.

With regard to the response to the fourth question, Naborius, having recovered health, was bound then only to present himself to the superior, or to be absolved by another having power from the reserved censure, if it had been reserved with this burden. I. M. 799.

Lest anyone perish on this occasion, there never was nor is THERE ANY RESERVATION at the article (or danger) of death. Trent, sess. 14, c. 7. And therefore in that article every reservation CEASES. Roman Ritual, On the Sacrament of Penance, § 17. Every reservation, and therefore whether sins or censures have been reserved; and consequently they ought to be judged by the same law. Suarez, de Poenit., d. 30, s. 3, n. 4; D'Annibale, p. 1, n. 349. Wherefore all priests, whether approved or not, who in that crisis of affairs can absolve from any sins whatsoever, can also absolve from any censures whatsoever, namely from those laid by law; likewise also from excommunications and from a personal interdict laid by man, since, unless the excommunications have first been absolved, sins cannot licitly be absolved; and, unless the personal interdict has been absolved, ecclesiastical burial also cannot be given. Whether also from suspension? Some affirm, for Trent says from any censures whatsoever; therefore none is excepted. Others, however, deny it, because Trent here provides only for those things which concern souls, lest anyone perish. Lugo, de Poenit., d. 20, n. 203; D'Annibale, p. 1, n. 349.

Moreover, does absolution given by an inferior because of the article or danger of imminent death, if the sick man recovers, bring with it the obligation of approaching the superior, certainly not that someone confess again to him, but that he receive his mandate? Some affirm absolutely from c. Eos qui, 22, de Sent. exc., in 6.º. Others deny it from Trent, since there is no reservation at the article of death, and therefore no burden of reservation, unless the law expressly commands it, as for papal cases reserved in a special manner, or the matter had been notorious, or had been brought to the contentious forum. Cf. Comment. de Censur., ed. 5, n. 76; I. M. 799.