Case LXX: An Invalid Absolution

Mr. N. was dangerously sick; he would not listen to admonitions to make his peace with God, and refused to see the priest. N.'s wife and the priest frequently took counsel together as to how it would be possible to bring about N.'s reconciliation with God, even in spite of his resistance. Finally the pastor resolved upon the following proceeding: He secretly took up his position in an adjoining room, only a few feet, therefore, from the patient's bed—then the wife went to the sick man, purposely leaving the door ajar, so that the priest in the front room could hear and understand everything, whereupon she started an intimate conversation with her husband, apparently with the purpose of entertaining the patient, but in reality to draw from him an open acknowledgment of his sins, and to incite in him sincere contrition. Being a clever woman she began by speaking of one subject or another, then in particular about how good he had been to her in every respect; then about the religious practices in which for a long time he had joined her; of course there had been, too, some dark hours, as for instance, the discord which had been caused some years ago in puncto religionis; his constant neglect of this and that duty; then in order to obtain a "confession of sins," after this "examination of conscience," she asked gently whether he remembered so and so, whereupon naturally the answer was a long-drawn "Yes, that is right," or, "I must admit that," etc. Then she told the sick man how painful all this had been and still was for her, all the more so, as she could not banish the awful thought and harrowing fear, that he, her well-beloved husband, would lose heaven and go to eternal perdition on account of these sins, and that an awful fate would await him after death unless he was heartily sorry for them. By these and similar representations the good wife endeavored to awaken sincere contrition in the sick man, but she never said a word about the reception of the Sacrament of Penance, so as not to counteract the good disposition of her husband by arousing in him anew his antipathy against the religious act. The priest, who had heard and understood everything distinctly, believed that he might under the circumstances be satisfied with this confessio dolorosa, and gave priestly absolution to the sick man unobserved and unknown by the latter. The priest confidently hoped in this manner to have saved the sick man's soul. The question is asked whether this absolution was valid or not? To this we must answer a decided No, for the reason that the penitent did not have the necessary intention to Sacramental absolution, and because the materia proxima Sacramenti was altogether absent.

^* By P. N. Katzemich, D.D.

1. The absolution in question is invalid because the penitent did not have the necessary intention to receive the Sacrament.

God gave to man reason and free will, and willed that no adult, i. e., no one who has attained the use of these faculties, should be saved without personal co-operation. Man, accordingly, must cooperate with grace, he must will to be saved, he must agree to it, and intend it. If sanctifying grace is to be imparted to him, through the administration of any of the Sacraments, he must agree to receive this Sacrament, he must will to receive it, he must have the intentio suscipiendi Sacramentum. This intention, it is true, may be of different kinds, it may be actual, habitual or virtual, and either be had explicite or implicite; but one of these kinds of intention must be present, just which one is immaterial, for the validity of the Sacrament.

Our patient had had none of these kinds of intention; we are even aware that he had declared a positive aversion for, and actual opposition to, the reception of the Sacrament of Penance. The peculiar examination of conscience and the resulting Confession were not calculated to produce a change of mind, and the contrition which his better half endeavored to awaken in him was rather doubtful; in fact, under the circumstances, we can hardly suppose or admit of its presence; otherwise the immediate result would have been the desire for a priest, and for the reception of the Sacrament of Penance. At all events the contrition was not such as to offset the deeply inrooted aversion, and therewith fades away the most important ray of hope for reconciliation with heaven of the sick man. The absolution therefore even if given "sacramentally," was totally inefficient and invalid, on account of the intentio suscipiendi being absent.

2. The absolution was invalid, because the materia proxima Sacramenti was completely lacking. By the materia proxima we mean the materia which was prescribed by the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, Cap. Ill) in the following manner: The acts of the penitent himself, namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction, are, as it were, the matter of this Sacrament (of Penance). Whether these actus poenitentis are to be understood as materia proxima intrinseca seu ex qua or merely as an extrinseca seu circa quam; in other words, whether they belong to the essence of the Sacrament, or are merely a conditio sine qua non, that we may leave here undecided; it only concerns us that in our case this materia was simply not present.

Apart from the very doubtful integritas materialis, necessary without question, there was really no confessio, properly speaking; for it can not be said that the patient made a sacramental confession of sin, i. e., that he accused himself to a prescribed confessor of all grievous sins committed in order to receive priestly absolution; he had no idea of the priest's secret presence, nothing was further from his thoughts than to confess and be absolved, and he resisted stubbornly the sacramental Confession. No doubt whatever can prevail upon that score that the patient made no confessio; he lacked therefore a most important part of the essential matter, or, at least, the indispensable conditio sine qua non; hence the absolution could not possibly take direct effect and the validity of the same can not be thought of.

Furthermore, there was lacking also the satisfactio sacramentalis; it was certainly not present in re: the confessor could not properly impose such because no confessio had taken place, and had the patient upon himself imposed a penance, it would not have been a sacramental penance. The satisfactio in voto presupposes a real and sufficient contrition and must de jure at least virtually manifest itself to the confessor; otherwise it would not be materia or pars materiae. Even if we could presume true contrition in our patient, the same did not de jure manifest itself to the confessor, and neither consequently a satisfactio in voto, even if present. There was, therefore no confessio nor satisfactio.

The third part of the materia proxima is the true contrition which must also de jure be manifest to the confessor. It is not impossible, although highly improbable, that the sick man, in consequence of his wife's representations, attained a true contrition, and hence sufficiently disposed in regard to sanctifying grace, but undoubtedly he was not possessed of that particular contrition required for the materia proxima Sacramenti. As materia, or pars materiae, the contrition must absolutely manifest itself exteriorly, of course not in se—for that is impossible—but in alio, i. e. in actu et per actum confessionis. As the patient made no confessio, his contrition, even if present as sufficiens dispositio ad justificationem ex opere operato, could not possibly manifest itself to the confessor and for that reason could not serve as materia, or pars materiae. Thus there are wanting in our patient all the actus poenitentis, the contritio, the confessio, and the satisfactio; in short, all of the materia proxima Sacramenti, which according to the interpretation of the Scotists is the indispensable "conditio sine qua non", and according to the interpretation of the far more numerous body of other theologians a "pars essentialis ipsius Sacramenti."

The validity of the absolution in question is, therefore£ to be absolutely denied.