Case LXIII: Feigning Absolution

The priest Sempronius has administered the last Sacraments to an insane man, dangerously ill, in his lucid moments. The patient subsequently becomes a raving maniac and incessantly and frantically calls for a priest to absolve him. Sempronius is called again and requested by relatives to pretend compliance with the lunatic’s demand, i. e., to put on his stole and act as if giving absolution. May Sempronius consent to this suggestion?

The answer can only be: No. Apart from the fact that positively and under no circumstances a simulatio Sacramenti, in the actual and serious sense, by which something is fictitiously posited that pertains essentially to the Sacrament may take place, for instance, pronouncing the words of absolution without intention to absolve, because such a mendacium sacrilegum is always a grievously sinful abuse of the holy Sacrament of Penance; the simulatio absolutionis, in the sense that the penitent, or bystander, or both, by the apparent performance of the judicial sentence, are deceived, while in reality only a blessing is imparted, is thoroughly unlawful. The confessor must not intend the deception of the penitent or of the bystanders, but only the concealment of the truth; for otherwise he would not escape the guilt of a lie (St. Alphonsus l. c.). Only in rare cases may the confessor conceal the truth by making the sign of the Cross and a prayer of blessing; he may conceal it to the penitent himself in a case where he must withhold absolution, on account of a certain sacrilegious concealment of a sin confessed by the complex of this penitent, in order to avoid material sacrilege and his own co-operation (St. Alphonsus speaks of this case, VI. n. 631); and before others, if the confessor cannot absolve the penitent on account of indisposition and must conceal the refusal to prevent violation of the seal of Confession and defamation of the penitent. (See S. Alphons. VI. n. 59; Lehmkuhl, II. n. 45.)

In our case there is manifestly no reason for a justifiable dissimu-latio denegatae absolutionis, it would be a simulatio intended purely ad deceptionem aegroti, by which the sacred Tribunal would be degraded to a farce or caricature, although for the good purpose of pacifying the patient.

What, then, may be done in our case? It would be advisable, first of all, to inquire if the desire of the insane man is not, indeed, more rational than that of his relatives, namely, if the sick man does not perhaps really need absolution, as it is possible that in lucid moments he realizes that his confession has been invalid, or he has committed another sin, and now, controlled by the impression, desires another Confession and absolution, hence his clamoring. If this suspicion can be verified, Sempronius must certainly again absolve the poor man in all earnestness, and unconditionally. But even if this supposition is not founded, or cannot be proved, Sempronius may also in all earnestness, but of course only conditionally, absolve the patient once more, and this he may even repeat at further visits. It is a matter here of one seriously ill, and as according to the doctrine of St. Alphonsus, it is not only permissible, but even advisable to grant absolution to such a one whether he be conscious or not, and after some time repeat it at least conditionally. In Appendix II. De assistentia erga moribundos, §5 monita circa agonem et mortem, to his work Homo apostolicus, tom. 4, the saintly writer says: While the sick person still possesses his senses, it will help to confer absolution upon him several times after a brief reconciliation, so that he may thereby be made more secure concerning his state of grace if perhaps his previous confessions were invalid, or at least may receive an increase of grace, and also that the punishments of purgatory may be diminished for him. ...

But if the sick person has now lost his senses and shows no sign of sorrow or desire for absolution, it is not expedient to impart absolution to him very frequently within the same day; because then, although it is given conditionally, an urgent and grave cause is required for the Sacrament validly to be administered under a condition. Hence it is necessary that some notable interval of time intervene. Yet in this the priest must guide himself by the sick person’s conscience insofar as he knows it; for if the person has been habituated to wicked thoughts, is dying from some wound, is entangled in some passion of hatred or impure love, if the illness is exceedingly painful, and he does not endure it with a willing mind, then absolution may be given more frequently; otherwise it suffices that an interval of three or four hours intervene—more frequently, however, if he is now about to die.

St. Alphonsus is correctly of the view that God in His infinite mercy incites the unconscious sick, struggling with death, in their lucid intervals, by giving them sufficient grace to make inward supernatural acts for salvation, and aids them, where necessary, as for the holy Sacrament of Penance, to manifest them also outwardly. Upon this presumption he bases the permissibility and advantage of repeating after appropriate intervals at least conditional absolution, it may in any case be repeated every three to four hours, and the nearer death the more frequently. Thus Sempronius should explain the matter to the relatives of the sick man, and tell them that though not able to entertain the suggestion of simulating the act, he will really give the patient the absolution. He will ascertain whether the patient has lucid moments, and use them for awakening acts of virtue, sentiments of contrition, and for the granting of unconditional absolution; or, if such lucid intervals are not perceptible he will, after announcing that he will pronounce absolution, recite aloud the acts mentioned before and give conditional absolution.

Dr. Joseph Eiselt.