Case LIV: Forgetting to Give Absolution

Caius was called to a dying person to administer the last Sacraments. He heard the dying man’s confession, gave him Holy Communion, Extreme Unction and general absolution. Only after returning home did it occur to him that he had forgotten to give sacramental absolution. Again he went to the sick man, made with him an act of contrition and, without saying anything to him about absolution, pronounced the words of sacramental absolution over - him.

Did Caius act correctly? Or rather let us ask: 1. Was Caius bound to return and absolve the dying man?

2. Was the absolution by Caius valid, although more than an hour had elapsed between confession and absolution?

3. Should Caius not have informed the sick man that he was now absolving him, in order to make the absolution valid?

The answer to all these questions is simple and requires only a brief argument.

1. The duty of absolving the dying validly, is based upon two reasons, firstly, to make sure, as far as possible, the eternal salvation of the dying; and, secondly, because according to divine law the sins of baptized, where possible, must be subjected to the power of the keys.

This subjection has its final in the sacramental absolution; the divine law therefore has not found its accomplishment when the penitent has confessed his sins, but then only when the priest has absolved the confessed sins by direct exercise of the power of the keys. The fulfilling of this divine command is particularly urgent in danger of death; for this reason then the duty of the sinner to confess, and the duty of the priest to absolve, become most important.

In our case the penitent had fulfilled his part; the confessor through an oversight had not fulfilled his. Undoubtedly he must repair the defect unless he be excused by an important reason. If only the priest’s duty is considered, the question whether the time it will take to return may be a sufficient reason for an excuse must depend upon the distance, and also upon the fact whether other pressing business would be delayed by returning to the patient. The reason for an excuse in this direction need not be a very weighty one.

Of more weight will have to be the ground for excuse if solicitude for the greater safety of the sick man’s salvation comes into consideration. Should the least doubt arise as to this safety, the defect, although unintentional, must be rectified even at the cost of considerable inconvenience. The question is then, do Holy Communion and Extreme Unction offer sufficient certainty?

With regard to Holy Communion its effect to sanctify those who, without their fault in the state of sin, receive it with previous attrition, is probable but not certain. Caius therefore can not excuse failure to return to the dying man with the fact of having administered the Holy Eucharist. In regard to Extreme Unction its effect is morally certain (Compare the author’s Theol. Mor., II, n. 568). As, however, some authors raise doubt even regarding this Sacrament, then these doubts, even if very feeble, are sufficient reason in Caius’ case to decide upon bestowing the absolution, especially in the case of a dying man, when the maxim should apply: No security is sufficiently great where eternity is endangered.

2. That an interval of one hour elapsed between confession and absolution does not make the latter invalid. The relation of matter and form is to be determined variously according to the nature of the different Sacraments. Just as in profane courts accusation, trial and sentence do not necessarily take place in one session, neither is this necessary in the tribunal of penance; although a long interval— as lawful in the former—would not always be without danger in the latter case. St. ALPHONSUS, referring to the opinion that absolution is valid even an hour after confession, says (lib. 6, n. 9): “It seems to have been accepted among all.”

3. The words just quoted refer to the absolution administered to the penitent without further advice or act; there was even greater certainty since Caius again awakened contrition with the dying man.

As far as the connection between matter and form of the Sacrament is concerned, all doubt as to its validity is precluded. Doubt of its validity could only arise in the event that perhaps the penitent meanwhile had committed a grievous sin. In that case of course another confession and a new conscious intention must enter for the reception of absolution. But in our case we may regard this supposition as excluded, because the probability is that the sick man would have accused himself of it. Nevertheless Caius would have done well to admonish the patient that he was about to absolve him. (No need to mention his previous forgetfulness.) There is nothing unusual about a repeated absolution of the dying. As, however, it is a matter of the actual reception of the Sacrament, it is always appropriate that the recipient actu be aware of it, when he will receive it with greater devotion, and consequently with greater fruits, unless there are weighty reasons against. Caius hardly committed a fault in not observing this method, yet it would have been better, if feasible, to make the sick man aware that absolution was being given.

Aug. Lehmkuhl, S.J.