Case L: Doubt Before Celebration

Father Caius, about to celebrate Mass, was in doubt if, perhaps, he had not grievously sinned by voluntary consent to a certain thought. While not positive of the fault, he was neither certain of the contrary. He decided to celebrate, because, according to the opinion of many theologians, the obligation to confess in such case is not certain. Neither did he feel obliged to awaken perfect contrition, since he reasoned that positive contrition cannot be felt about a doubtful matter. With trepidation he read subsequently in Elbel (Part II. n. 166, p. 65 of the new edition) that this great theologian and probabilist teaches that the view of confession being necessary in such a case should certainly be adhered to omnimodis sectanda. He decided to submit the question to his confessor. He read also Elbel’s opinion that a priest need not abstain from celebration if in doubt whether he had taken a drink of water before or after midnight. In the following night Father Caius awakened and, feeling great thirst, he drank some water, without bothering about the time, and said Mass the following morning, not, however, without some concern. He submits both matters to his confessor. What must the latter reply?

1. Concerning the first point, we may say that it seems certain to present-day moralists that in this case, before the reception of the holy Communion, or before celebration, there is no obligation to confess. Thus Ballerini, Lehmkuhl, Hilarius and others (even St. Alphonsus maintains this view, at least in his work Homo Apostolicus, tr. 15. n. 34. and tr. 16. n. 31, where he reverses the opinion stated in his larger work, n. 475). I am not of opinion that the speculative doubt of commission or non-commission of a mortal sin can generally (communiter) by the attending circumstances be resolved into certainty one way or the other. My pastoral experience has shown that such a doubt under many circumstances may remain indissoluble, and under such condition there exists no strict obligation to confess. The Council of Trent obliges to Confession only those who are conscious of mortal sin; the doubter, however, is not conscious of mortal sin. Elbel, otherwise a pronounced probabilist, is here, after citing that this argument is accepted by many theologians, not consistent. The cause of this inconstancy is the fact that Elbel leaves almost entirely out of consideration the safety which the act of perfect contrition affords, and upon which he, like many other moralists of his time, does not venture to rely. To arouse this act is, of course, of obligation, unless in the case of imperfect contrition Confession is made, because there is to be avoided the danger of receiving the Most Blessed Sacrament in a manner that its effects would be lost. It would, no doubt, be most deplorable if a priest were not conscious, with moral certainty, of having perfect contrition, for there is hardly a subject about which he should. instruct the people more frequently and impressively than the act of the love of God and the contrition proceeding from it. Through this act is given the certainty of the state of grace. If any doubt should remain, even in one well informed, I agree with Lehmkuhl (/. ». 150), who says that there is no obligation to seek further certainty (after having done the best one could and what was considered necessary). I should not even advise the priest to confess, at least not one who confesses every week or fortnight, since the advice to confess doubtful sins, while proper in the instance of the laity who easily deceive themselves in regard to their sins, is less in place for the well-informed priest who celebrates daily and confesses regularly within the stated times. It may be asked: Is it possible to awaken certain contrition about an uncertain sin? It may be admitted that it cannot be done because contrition must contain the consciousness of committed sin; but the obligation to awaken the act of contrition, or at least the perfect act of charity which virtually includes contrition, remains, because without moral certainty of being in the state of grace one must not approach holy Communion. He who makes an act of perfect love of God, and by reason of this love repents of all previous sins he may have committed, has surely complied with this obligation.

2. As concerns the second point, the drinking of water, Father Caius did not correctly, or at least not fully, comprehend the teaching of Elbel (. 167), to which to-day, as in Elbel’s time, the moralists satis communiter adhere. This teacher says that when in doubt whether he ate or drank before or after midnight, one is not obliged, for this reason, to abstain from holy Communion; it is not positive that he has not been fasting, therefore reception of the Most Blessed Sacrament is not prohibited to him. It is nowhere asserted, as Elbel rightly observes, that the Church wishes her commandment be complied with so rigidly, that even those who doubt whether their fast has not been broken should deny themselves holy Communion. Father Caius, however, has overlooked what Elbel has to say, in conclusion, about the dubium antecedens. It is not permissible to cause such a doubt by voluntary action. It is the quite elementary condition of probabilism that we have done what we ought to have done, or what we could, in order to avoid uncertainty. We are obliged to take care that we keep the Commandments, and that we do not transgress their prohibitions. In the Commandment and prohibition, of which there is question here, is conveyed the injunction that we must avoid any uncertainty, and not cause it to exist, as to whether we are fasting from midnight or not. He, therefore, who drinks something, and purposely refuses to ascertain what time it is, cannot avail himself of the probabilistic principle. By receiving the Blessed Sacrament he would confirm his grievously sinful indifference as to whether the Commandment of the Church in this important matter is observed or not. If Father Caius had in his simplicity intended to follow the probabilistic principle, then he has subjectively not sinned; in reality, however, this application of the principle is not allowed.

If, in this case, the celebration is imperatively necessary, and if Father Caius has foreseen the necessity, he will have to proceed like one conscious of a grievous sin.

Julius Müllendorff, S.J.